/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15456073]

Why is it so rare for scientists/engineers to be interested in philosophy and literature? A lot of them are downright hostile towards it and proud of their ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15456104]

Because in order to be a competent scientist these days you have to spend the first 25 years of your life drilling textbooks and doing research, they don't have time to settle with a book 'side the hearth to read some ancient greek pedo fables

[Anonymous No.15456130]

>>15456073
Because 90% of academic philosophers sincerely are retarded, it's not a meme, the overwhelming of shit that comes out of universities these days as "philosophy" legitimately is just pretentious nonsense.

There's still that 10% doing really nice work, but if you're a scientist your general experience of philosophers is going to be them completely mangling subjects that they know nothing about. This is greatly aided by the fact that any humanities education is often just daycare for adults depending on your university.

[Anonymous No.15456133]

That's just Feynman and also because STEMlords are spending time studying one thing and never get the opportunity to branch out.

[Anonymous No.15456150]

>>15456073
Because they already have a methodology to explain the world around them, or probably more commonly the very specific part of the world that interests them. You don't NEED to care about a lot of the things philosophy concerns itself with to be an effective scientist, and literature in a recreational sense is strictly optional. A lot of hard science is actually heavily intuitive. You spend a lot of time attaining a lot of knowledge and from there get a spark of intuition, which you then investigate thoroughly using the scientific method. Formal logic doesn't necessarily ever need to step in, especially when you can instead involve math, especially considering the fact that math is much closer to reality than philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.15456151]

>>15456073
Their ego is grounded in a credentialed fields... all you need to know

[Anonymous No.15456160]

>>15456073
philosofags like hegel or heidegger have spent the last 2 centuries shitting on science, shitting on truth, and claiming to be superior for spewing word salad. Do you really expect a science-minded person to respect
>science is oppressive
>nothing nothings
>the negation of negation
>from quality to quantity
>bodies without organs
etc?

[Anonymous No.15456162]

>Philosophy: well, it makes sense
>Science: well, it can be objectively determined

[Anonymous No.15456168]

>>15456073
>philosophy
Why do you fucks pick on MBTI with the astology meme but talk about philosophy? The world is being figured out and so are people, but it has nothing to do with Plato or Hume.

[Anonymous No.15456172]

>>15456073
>do science
>practical results

>do philosophy
>bunch of hipsters love you...?
GEE I WONDER WHY PEOPLE PREFER SCIENCES THESE DAYS

[Anonymous No.15456198]

>>15456073
Because actually reading philosophy and thinking about ethics, knowledge, God etc has the potential of actually upsetting the comfy preconceived notions you have about things.

[Anonymous No.15456206]

>>15456073
The only people interested in philosophy I've met irl are STEM kids. Actual philosophy majors are often lawtards who read some outdated Buzzfeed-tier "What major should I choose?" clickbait, idiots who want to "I dunno man, I just care about deeper things, man lol," or kids who are under the illusion it is an easy major to BS in (which, in turn, many depts. cater to to maintain enrollment numbers). I will say engineer kids are an outlier, and it is usually math guys that are into philosophy via logic or just a healthy desire to be a more interesting, better read person, but I think we often conflate engineering majors who pursue it for the rigor and dumb blue collar kids whose fathers told them engineering was their only path to economic mobility (I'm looking at you, poos), and a lot of those people are just happy to be in college in the first place and will devote all their energy to their major, especially by year two.

[Anonymous No.15456209]

>>15456198
>God
I wonder why THIS poster dislikes science.

[Anonymous No.15456218]

>>15456160
Posts like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of History of Philosophy, which is one of the readily-accessible sub-fields via outside academia. You have no excuse, and no, I'm not going to spoonfeed you why your post is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15456221]

>>15456209
It's not implied anywhere on his post that he "hates science", whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.15456223]

>>15456206
That's some nice anecdotal evidence you got there m8

[Anonymous No.15456230]

>>15456073
Because modern philosophers are either analytic dorks or continental fart sniffers that give the concept of philosophy a bad name, and scientists bump into these people at university, so they conclude that the whole field is a meme.

[Anonymous No.15456232]

>>15456221
"Science" is a paradigm which often comes into conflict with religion, and his position on this was heavily implied.

[Anonymous No.15456233]

>>15456223
Oh shut the fuck up. We're having a conversation. Of course I'm going to use anecdotal evidence you absolute twit. It's contributive in the most low level way for a low level question. I'll be waiting for that formal treatise you're typing up, faggot. I expect only the finest boolean logic.

[Anonymous No.15456239]

>>15456218
Posts like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of History of Philosophy, which is one of the readily-accessible sub-fields via outside academia. You have no excuse, and no, I'm not going to spoonfeed you why your post is retarded

[Anonymous No.15456243]

[Anonymous No.15456249]

>>15456239
Stay mad, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15456271]

>>15456160
What the fuck are you talking about? Hegel's system is, among other things, an attempt of the grounding of science.

[Anonymous No.15456284]

>>15456218
lol. pure cope. what you're doing here is something that only works on philosofags who are intellectually insecure. when you tell them to shut up and spend 10 years trying to make sense of thousand page ramblings about how nothings nothing they do so because they're desperate to be perceived as intelligent. whereas someone in math or physics is confident in their own intelligence, because their field requires them to demonstrate it everyday. therefore they have no reservations about throwing nothing nothings in the toilet, along with all the pseuds that defend it.

[Anonymous No.15456285]

>>15456130
That's only true for continental philosophy though

[Anonymous No.15456295]

>>15456073
Philfag here and I agree with the quote (although I've heard it with artists and aesthetics). Philosophy is its own discipline and artists or scientists don't need to know it to do their work. They also probably don't need much more than a surface understanding of the history of their disciplines either, but that doesn't invalidate the whole field of history.

[Anonymous No.15456301]

>>15456232
Wow dude yea I said "God" wow that must mean I hate "science". That was so heavily implied.

[Anonymous No.15456306]

>>15456284
>spend 10 years trying to make sense of thousand page ramblings about how nothings nothing they do so
Yeah there are things called secondary sources, Chad. As a bugman, you should be fond of the idea of outsourcing your knowledge in the yeard 2020.

[Anonymous No.15456315]

>>15456285
You have clearly not read a lot of analytic philosophy if you think that it's not full of dribble and shitty papers completely trapped in their own jargon and methaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15456319]

>>15456284
No he is right your post was shit. You mentioned two philosophers who you don't like, accused them of being antiscience without any evidence and misquoted them, and somehow you think this discredits the enterprise of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15456332]

>>15456315
Give me an example then. And I don't just mean some kids university thesis.

[Anonymous No.15456341]

Okay so science deals with the material so then what does philosophy deal with?
We live in a material world and reality is made up of matter, so do philosophers concern themselves with some fictional world?

[Anonymous No.15456346]

>>15456332
Two Dogmas of Empiricism- Quine
Naming and Necessity- Saul Kripke
There, just gave you one of the easiest, most comprehensive scans of analytic philosophy of the past hundred years. Should take you a weekend to complete, tops, and you'll be pretty much up-to-speed with a lot of today's debates.

[Anonymous No.15456390]

Dunno, that wasn't the case where I studied. And considering the scientific books made by American authors I read it didn't seemed to be the case either.

If you are talking about Feyman's case, I don't know. Read a bit of his books and he seemed like a cartoon character.

[Anonymous No.15456393]

>>15456346
So by shitty papers you just mean philosophers you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.15456410]

>>15456133
>That's just Feynman
And everyone who wants to channel his powers.

[Anonymous No.15456421]

>>15456393
Huh? I think you (you)'d the wrong person, either that or you're struggling here.

[Anonymous No.15456424]

>>15456319
cope.
>>15456306
nothing nothings isn't meaningful or valuable when it was first written by pseuddegger so why read second sources on what is fundamentally worthless.

more cope from philosofags. if hitler had killed continental philosophers and burned all their works instead of jews he would have done humanity a great service.

[Anonymous No.15456435]

>>15456341
With questions like
>What is a good life?
>What is a fair society?
>What is the good/just/morally correct action in X case?
>What individuals have rights and which ones do they have?
>What is art?
>What is beauty?
>Whqt is truth?
>What is knowledge and are some better or more valuable/valid forms of knowledge than others?
>If so, why?
Etc.

[Anonymous No.15456436]

>>15456424
You're just ignorant. I'll light a candle for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.15456441]

>>15456393
t.retard

[Anonymous No.15456450]

Industrial-driven specialization has completely muddled the meaning of what a scientist is supposed to be
I am a STEMbug I know this very well

[Anonymous No.15456478]

>>15456073
From my experience it's philosofags who are obsessed with and have an inferiority complex about "STEM bugmen" whereas the philosofags existence doesn't even cross the STEMchads mind as he focuses on improving himself and making money.

[Anonymous No.15456509]

>>15456319
If you want bad papers from a well-renowed (and rightfully so) philosopher, a lot of Russell's work on philosophy of language is laughably bad and consists on imposing himself a view of how language works and what pieces it is composed of and then trying to juggle them together to solve problems created by his own categories. If you don't want to take my word for it you can always take Wittgenstein's.

Another example of a living philosopher is Searle. I admire Austin a lot but his disciple is severely lacking IMO.

Anyways almost all working philosophers consider the analytic/continental dichotomy already overcome and borrow freely from both traditions. Look up the "linguistic turn" if you don't beliwve me

[Anonymous No.15456526]

>>15456509

Searle probably got prominent because he got many citations establishing how wrong he is

[Anonymous No.15456533]

>>15456421
This is what you said
>You have clearly not read a lot of analytic philosophy if you think that it's not full of dribble and shitty papers completely trapped in their own jargon and methaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15456537]

>>15456533
Yeah no bud that's not me. Don't be so eager to spar when you can't even get your (you)s right.

[Anonymous No.15456540]

>>15456533
You are quoting two different persons newfag

[Anonymous No.15456546]

>>15456441
Damn, got me good

[Anonymous No.15456552]

>>15456436
actual knowledge > ignorance > meaningless delusion that merely gives the appearance (you are here).

[Anonymous No.15456573]

>>15456552
No wonder you think its delusional. Your only anchor in these texts are pieces that lack an understanding of the systematic context that produces such works. You wouldn't walk into an upper-level division physics course, let alone a lab where serious data is being collected and stored, and go "Wow this is delusional!" It's just a language you have no bearings in. Get over it, or if you actually care, follow a program to get into the language and then criticize it (which, you know, is the job of secondary source material, critic, theoretical progress, etc.). But don't be so lowly you just sperg out and google refutations because, no shit, you're going to find disingenuous stuff like this, just like how I can find flat-earthers treating basic geography with the same contempt, all the way up the chain of "authority."

[Anonymous No.15456578]

>>15456552
Wow, one passage from a french postmodern psychoanalist philosopher coming from a tradition of intentional obscurantism is barely comprehensible.

Guess that's it for philosophy boys, better call it quits now. Brn gonna burn all my Plato.

[Anonymous No.15456580]

>>15456509
Now I feel like we are moving the goalposts, I am sure You can. find a bad paper Russell wrote here or there but that doesn't prove that physicists are justified to laugh at philosophy, that's a non sequitur. And no I'm not taking fucking Wittgensteins word for it. I would be really interested in why you think Searle is shit though, my impression is the opposite.
>Anyways almost all working philosophers consider the analytic/continental dichotomy already overcome and borrow freely from both traditions. Look up the "linguistic turn" if you don't beliwve me
That's complete nonsense, most analytics don't read continentals, and the linguistic turn has nothing to do with continental influence.

[Anonymous No.15456593]

>>15456580
Anon this post is so retarded that I'm gonna go now. You have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.15456598]

>>15456593
:( now that's disingenuous

[Anonymous No.15456610]

>>15456578
>french postmodern psychoanalist philosopher
Deleuze was schizoanalytic bro

[Anonymous No.15456631]

>>15456578
I'm not against all philosophers, only 99% of them. I'm quite fond of dennett and hume. but the 99%, they need to embarrassed and kicked out of polite society, and from the last 200 years, their works burned. and of course the answer to the question of the thread is those 99% of philosophers and their work. plato is not very valuable to read currently, his arguments and thoughts are mostly confused and invalid.
>>15456573
>Your only anchor in these texts are pieces that lack an understanding of the systematic context that produces such works
once again the argument of "you cannot criticize my non-sensical anti-truth, anti-science rambling without first spending 20 years engaging with it. I've told you, this does not work on intellectually secure people. Btw, you will NEVER find anything equivalent in natural science. even though it may be beyond ones level, it will never be clearly nonsensical, self-contradictory or vague like philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15456665]

>>15456631
I'm literally just saying read books that explain the concepts you want to shit on rather than read the books that shit on the concepts for you. That's it. You should admire the efficiency of this approach as a supposedly "intellectually secure" person. Another analogy: if you are so confident in the gibberish of the Bible and theology as a whole, why would you turn to Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins to criticize theology for you when you could just read the Bible, or one of the many shorter thinkers commenting or invoking the Bible, and then have an actual basis to critique them yourself. It should be clear which strategy actually makes you look like a pseud. Also
>bitching about reading on a /lit/ board
I'm not even gonna engage your parallel to the natural sciences because, again, you just lack the proper understanding of the resources in order to draw that parallel in the first place. Do better. Don' be so proud to be so lazy you fucking termite. You're not optimizing anything of value here except the degradation of your own mind.

[Anonymous No.15456666]

>>15456580
>I'm not taking fucking Wittgensteins word for it
Take Russell's then because he abandoned the project after Wittgenstein showed him how his theory of propositions and relations was wrong.

>His criticism . . . was an event of first-rate importance in my life, and affected ... I saw he was right, and I saw that I could not hope ever again to do fundamental work in philosophy

[Anonymous No.15456671]

>>15456631
Plato basically covers all the still relevant questions in ethics and metaphysics. Is there even such thing as a scientifically grounded system of ethics?

[Anonymous No.15456678]

>>15456631
>plato is not very valuable to read currently, his arguments and thoughts are mostly confused and invalid.
Big if true

[Anonymous No.15456681]

>>15456671
>scientifically grounded system of ethics?
This is kind of a dumb question to ask because the best you're gonna get is some Selfish Gene style defense of altruism, which is ethics lite. Ethics is not concerned with "the facts" but "the values," which involve facts but ultimately rely on a system of concepts to be sorted out and dealt with on their own terms.

[Anonymous No.15456682]

>>15456593
It's okay I still love you even if you don't understand the linguistic turn

[Anonymous No.15456688]

>>15456682
This anon needs all the love he can get. Someone has him SPOOKED.

[Anonymous No.15456689]

>>15456580
>That's complete nonsense, most analytics don't read continentals, and the linguistic turn has nothing to do with continental influence.
Please just GOOGLE "linguistic turn" then kys

[Anonymous No.15456698]

>>15456681
This is what I was getting at. Philosophy is necessary for ethics and ethics requires grounding in metaphysics. Its disingenuous for someone to say that science has totally replaced philosophy when any value system that person has to even evaluate the distinction between philosophy and science is contingent on something other than science.

[Anonymous No.15456712]

>>15456698
tru tru

[Anonymous No.15456713]

>>15456665
then everyone would spend their entire lives trying to make sense of something which can't be made sense of. congratulations you've successfully denial-of-service attacked the entirety of human thought.
of course you're being a massive hypocrite when you're saying this, because the pseuds of deleuze and hegel are completely ready to reject science or traditional religious mysticism without spending decades studying it.

[Anonymous No.15456737]

>>15456713
Not sure if genuine stembug autism or just a very good quality troll

[Anonymous No.15456743]

>>15456341
It is not obvious everything is matter, even if it would be, philosophy can be discussed of how certain consents which are not obviously material, mind, truth, numbers, and so on, would manifest themselves in a material world.

[Anonymous No.15456745]

>>15456713
based
>>15456737
cringe

[Anonymous No.15456747]

>>15456713
>then everyone would spend their entire lives trying to make sense of something which can't be made sense of.
No they wouldn't. Don't be so defeatist. Aspire for more Mr. Lazypants.

>because the pseuds of deleuze and hegel are completely ready to reject science or traditional religious mysticism without spending decades studying it.
I'll reiterate your ignorance here dude. Hegel's strongest possible scope isn't speaking on science, but metaphysics. There's no denial involved; it's a different kind all together. Deleuze is explicitly pro-science in the naturalist sense I seen in his work on Lucretius, Hume, Spinoza, and Nietzsche. He's anti-Enlightenment tradition of science as ultimate procession of rationalist bias, sure, but isn't everyone after Einstein? And the last of the positivists died out in the 80s dude. You're just behind on the times. The whole "antiscience" angle of philosophy is restricted to a handful of guys ('Show me the Marxists, Peterson, where are the Marxists?"). This could all be clarified if you just read a <150 page book.

[Anonymous No.15456748]

>>15456737
this however is obviously genuine philosofag pseud butthurt.

[Anonymous No.15456756]

>>15456713
>>15456665
sometimes I wonder why I come on this board just to see post after post of people who've read nothing criticize w/e they don't like and then strut like they're some sort of intellectual. I swear 70% of this board doesn't even read.

[Anonymous No.15456760]

>>15456689
Don't even try to debate me on this you will get crushed. I don't know what Wikipedia article you misinterpreted but the linguistic turn has nothing to do with continental influence, it is an analytical movement that was inspired from and developed characteristically wittgensteinian themes

[Anonymous No.15456769]

>>15456666
Nice get for a suicidal Russell post.

[Anonymous No.15456772]

>>15456712
>>15456698
Nicest conclusion to this wild thread, also I agree

[Anonymous No.15456775]

>>15456666
Satan has a point

[Anonymous No.15456778]

>>15456073
Because they don't have enough time to ponder.

[Anonymous No.15456782]

>>15456301
Just ignore the 12 year old atheist posters, if they didn't want attention they wouldn't be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.15456786]

>>15456756
>70%
Ah, gentle soul, it is so much worse than that.

[Anonymous No.15456798]

>>15456578
>coming from a tradition of intentional obscurantism
imagine just accepting this as a normal thing in your field. philosocucks are totally hopeless

[Anonymous No.15456803]

>>15456798
It's a french thing, bro. Aren't like Russian scientists accused of the same?

[Anonymous No.15456816]

>>15456756
Most of this site is angry individuals looking to score some thrill out of insulting people over topics they gleaned over in a university class or skimmed over in Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.15456820]

>>15456803
>he thinks the Bogs are actually scientists

[Anonymous No.15456828]

>>15456760
Idk what to tell you other than read Rorty I guess. Btw nobody in their right mind is denying the enormous influence of Wittgenstein on the linguistic turn, that wasn't my point at all.

[Anonymous No.15456838]

>>15456820
I hope you take fiber supplements.

[Anonymous No.15456839]

>>15456798
Philosofag here and I do consider it to be a total disgrace desu. Derrida is the clearest example of this shit, I swear to god he just wrote books for himself.

[Anonymous No.15456858]

>>15456839
>filtered
So suave

[Anonymous No.15456877]

>>15456803
>It's a french thing, bro
the same is true for the germans see>>15456424
. so this is true for 99% of philosophy you'll ever hear about as being currently fashionable, if you're not interested and somewhat informed about the topic beforehand. so how is it a mystery that science minded people write off the whole discipline?
>nothing nothings dude whoah! can't know nothing science is for fags yo

[Anonymous No.15456897]

>>15456747
>This could all be clarified if you just read a <150 page book.
funny then that literally thousands of pages have been written by professional academics arguing about what the hell it actually was any of these philosophers meant.

[Anonymous No.15456898]

>>15456828
And of course you had Rorty in mind, the one well known philosopher who was inspired from both analytical and continental philosophy. But Rorty was just one person, and the linguistic turn itself had nothing to do with continental philosopher. You won't find Donald Davidson talking about his debt to Heidegger, I can assure you that.

[Anonymous No.15456911]

>>15456897
>Quoting Russell on Hegel
Gtfo pseud

[Anonymous No.15456918]

I genuinely do not understand you bragging about not being able to comprehend works of philosophy.
I also do not understand why you seem to imply that philosophy means
>you cannot know anything
or
>experiential knowledge is illegitimate
This is a very silly thing to say.

[Anonymous No.15456926]

>>15456877
You don't understand that Heidegger quote because you haven't either read him nor Descartes nor Nietzsche. You clearly don't understand the Enlightenment project and why it failed either. Please stop talking about shit you don't know if you don't want people to think that you are an idiot.

ps: you are an idiot

[Anonymous No.15456931]

Philosophy is a perverse all consuming thing.
It strips people of their humanity and tries to cross the boundaries that weren't meant to be crossed.
It has led to countless human suffering in the form of oppressive political system and confusion among females and males about their natural roles.
It has deconstructed society to its very core and stripped it of all that made it good.
It is a computer virus or a cancer if you will and should be exorcised.
Philosophy is not useless perse, it is useful to those who wish to pervert.
Put a bug in the systems operating system and all of the sudden everything malfunctions. Try to fix that bug and further corrupt the system and down the rabbit hole you go until whats left doesn't resemble an operating system.

[Anonymous No.15456948]

>>15456898
That's alright mate let's just call this quits before I develop an ulcer from talking to you

[Anonymous No.15456959]

>>15456926
for science minded people about whom you can say
>they are not intellectually insecure, they don't care about impressing anyone
>they don't care about dogma
>they want clarity
>they believe in truth and intellectual honesty
it is not relevant that the nonsense purports to originate in a long historical tradition of famous thinkers.

[Anonymous No.15456960]

>>15456877
>greentexts "cant know nothing"
>likes Hume
What did anon mean by this?

>>15456897
Interpretation has nothing to do with intelligibility, dumbass. Criticism deals in concepts, not language, unless it's a translator's review or something. Those thousands of pages are for specialists who are fleshing out possible upshots or downsides of a thinkers view. The <150 book is for the laymen like you who need to sharpen up their minds before daring to enter the arena of substantial thought.

[Anonymous No.15456962]

>>15456926
>You clearly don't understand the Enlightenment project and why it failed either.
why'd it fail then, smart guy?

[Anonymous No.15456966]

Oh look, its another "/lit/ skims wikipedia articles and googles quotes to dunk on subjects it doesn't understand" thread.

STEMlets betray their puddle-deep reading comprehension with every post. "I found an out of context sentence from 400 pages into a 600 page book and I didn't understand it instantly, that means its obscurantist." Its like a middle schooler who opens a differential equations text, fails to understand it, and decides that mathematics is useless as a result. See you all this time next week when some greasy sperg stumbles upon 20th century philosophy and decides that its time to make this thread, again.

[Anonymous No.15456978]

>>15456931
>It has led to countless human suffering in the form of oppressive political system
Yeah Genghis Kahn studied philosophy and thats why he massacred half of Asia.....

I am sure thousands of other barely known kings from Asia past all killed and maimed because of philosophy.

Not because they where power hungry sociopaths who wanted more and more.

[Anonymous No.15456983]

>>15456960
>before daring to enter the arena of substantial thought
>nothing nothings is substantial thought but mathematics, physics and biology is not
is it a mystery why science-minded people don't care about philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15456989]

>>15456962
Failed is a strong word. But tl;dr the Holocaust and general relativity.

[Anonymous No.15456994]

>>15456960
>What did anon mean by this?
hume was pro-science, anti-pseud rambling.

[Anonymous No.15456996]

Science might be the way to discover palpable truths about our world, but without a philosophical foundation you end up misusing your new found knowledge, and end up with abominations like tranny culture and other shit like that.

[Anonymous No.15456998]

>>15456983
How many years of study does it take to become a professional in any of those fields? I'm sure Dawkins and Einstein read only elementary textbooks

[Anonymous No.15457000]

>>15456959
So you haven't read them then, correct?

[Anonymous No.15457001]

>>15456983
Philosophy explicitly deals in thought. All the disciplines you listed have other objects. You just have a scope issue dude. Don't get so butthurt.

[Anonymous No.15457008]

>>15456989
>Holocaust
a result of continental philosophy. feeling instead of thinking and rejecting reason. this is extreme dishonesty.
>general relativity
a world view built on reason and rationality, which is science, improves itself. how the actual hell does this refute enlightenment values?

[Anonymous No.15457010]

>>15456994
Yeah that's really the upshot of radical empiricism and a critique of causality. You know Hume quit philosophy because he figured out that radical empiricism supersedes science, right?

[Anonymous No.15457019]

>>15456994
Hume was literally a hardline skeptic. He didnt even believe in causality and his criticism of induction is fuel for anyone who wants to troll a scientist

[Anonymous No.15457022]

>>15456989
>Holocaust
Thats caused by Jewish arrogance and hubris, the holocaust, which was named after an event in the Bible, was just a very big progrom.

> general relativity.

If you think general relativity has anything to do with moral relativism, you are literally insane and very stupid.

[Anonymous No.15457024]

>>15457008
>Holocaust
>a result of continental philosophy. feeling instead of thinking and rejecting reason. this is extreme dishonesty.
Walk me through that one.

If you don't see the massive conflict between general relativity and the Copernican revolution at the levels of concepts then you don't know history of science, either. The real tl;dr here is you don't do much reading or contextualization. Why concern yourself with ideas then when you can't even get the facts straight?

[Anonymous No.15457030]

>>15457022
>If you think general relativity has anything to do with moral relativism, you are literally insane and very stupid.
Where did I imply that? Who mentioned moral relativity here?
also of course it does you dumbfuck prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.15457047]

>>15457030
>Where did I imply that?
I clearly wrote down "if", because I honestly cant think of any other reason for someone to attack general relativity, unless they go with the fundie idea that general relativity is somehow moral relativity.

[Anonymous No.15457051]

>>15457047
Who is attacking general relativity?

[Anonymous No.15457054]

>>15457051
>Who is attacking general relativity?
I have no idea what you mean now, do you even know, what is your opinion on general relativity, please tell me.

[Anonymous No.15457057]

>>15457010
>>15457019
none of you have actually read hume.
>>15457024
germans were explicitly anti-rationality. see deutsche physik, nazi math, the impact of nietzsche and heidegger and schmidt. meanwhile they chased the logical positivists out. to blame nazi-germany on the enlightenment project is as dishonest as it gets.
>If you don't see the massive conflict between general relativity and the Copernican revolution at the levels of concepts then you don't know history of science
you are talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15457064]

>>15456996
That came from philosophy, not science, with the work of deconstructionists.

[Anonymous No.15457068]

>>15457057
t. retard

[Anonymous No.15457075]

>>15456966
>ackshyually it's not obscurantist at all in context stupid stemfag
>ackshyually it's intentionally obscurantist that's the point stupid stemfag
make up your mind, philosocucks

[Anonymous No.15457079]

>>15457057
You haven't read Hume. That's okay though keep embarrassing yourself.

>germans were explicitly anti-rationality.
>what is german idealism

[Anonymous No.15457088]

>>15456073

weird how he says some dumb shit like this, yet all of quantum mechanics is unverified metaphysical claims. and the mathematics that it rests on is so shaky and tenuous you have morons believing in rick and morty parallel universes unironically

[Anonymous No.15457092]

>>15457075
Stay mad, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15457095]

>>15456966
literally every week, but they keep getting replies so...

[Anonymous No.15457103]

>>15457079
hume didn't reject cause and effect, he showed it as a basic faculty of the human mind. this doesn't lead to continental philosophy at all. see the above quote. again, he was explicitly pro-science, anti-rambling. cope more.
>what is german idealism
continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15457108]

>>15457075
I only ever said the former of those two statements, and the fact that you somehow still managed to misinterpret my post only makes it more true. Only an arrogant asshole or a fool would expect to understand any upper-level subject one sentence at a time by starting anywhere they like.

[Anonymous No.15457111]

>>15457092
cope

[Anonymous No.15457133]

>>15456284

This is the most based post I've seen on this website ytd.

>>15456319

No U.

[Anonymous No.15457134]

>>15457088
>a-actually everyone else's field is just as ridiculous and made up as mine
you wish philosocuck

[Anonymous No.15457142]

>useful
Technique has gotten this man in his grips. Sad!

[Anonymous No.15457162]

>>15457095
if continentals didn't want to be shut into lockers or get dunked in toilets by sciencechads on a regular basis maybe they should
>1) not be in academia next door to actual search for truth
>2) not stick their nose up at science, claiming nothing nothings makes them superior

[Anonymous No.15457213]

>>15456073
>Because in order to be a competent scientist these days you have to spend the first 25 years of your life drilling textbooks and doing research
Basically. To do research nowadays in fundamental physics you have to have so much more background knowledge than a physicist c. 1900. People bemoan the lack of renaissance men, but the reality is that there was a lot less stuff to know back then, a lot of it can be taught to teenagers nowadays.

[Anonymous No.15457239]

>>15456573
The difference is that you can learn what the symbols in higher math or physics mean whereas many don't agree on what the words of philosophers like Deleuze mean.

[Anonymous No.15457250]

>>15456073
Academic certifications inflate their egos.

[Anonymous No.15457251]

>>15457064
>deconstructionism
>philosophy
Deconstructionism is just applied nihilism, as Nietzsche predicted. No actual inquiry went into it.

[Anonymous No.15457322]

>>15456073
Undergrads are not scientists and yes STEM undergrads are horrible people that overidentify with their field. STEM reseachers are as likely to be interested in literature as everybody else, probably even more likely if you look at Maths and ignore the physicstards.
t. CS postdoc

[Anonymous No.15457392]

>>15456552
You know this stuff always does get me and I'd love to have someone set me straight about what it means and why.

I've been wanting to get into philosophy and read this and that to dabble, but when I see quotes like what's in the image, I absolutely cannot parse what the fuck they are saying and it does kind of make it seem like it's mostly bullshit.

Does it really just come down to needing to take the time to understand their terminology? Or is that quote in the image literally a bunch of babble? What is he saying in that paragraph actually? If someone is able to simply explain his meaning, why didn't Deleuze explain it in a similar way?

[Anonymous No.15457395]

>>15456341

This is absurd. Your life is affected by the immaterial, i.e. Government, Money, Society, etc., to a much greater degree than by the material. For example, there being an abundance of guns in the US is contingent on something totally abstract, the Constitution, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.15457427]

>>15456341
>We live in a material world
[citation needed] you faggot.

[Anonymous No.15457473]

>>15456994

Quantity and Number are themselves MOST Philosophical. Number does not, or should not, even exist, according to Hume.

[Anonymous No.15457530]

>>15457392
Starting with the greeks isnt just a meme

[Anonymous No.15457553]

>>15457134

which particle did you pull out of your ass to come up with that rebuttal?

[Anonymous No.15457556]

>>15457392
Philosophers generally elucidate their terms. I wouldn't suggest diving head first into Hegel, though.

[Anonymous No.15457620]

>>15457392
Most of it is just literary flourish meant to impress female Frog graduate students.

[Anonymous No.15457637]

>>15456803
>Aren't like Russian scientists accused of the same?
Not really, Russian science books are usually clear. Russians just have a "unqiue" style that one has to get used to. One can describe some books or papers as "very Russian" but that doesn't mean they're incomprehensible, far from it.

[Anonymous No.15457696]

>>15456552
What is the source of this?

[Anonymous No.15457859]

>>15456073
Scientists have become a new modern clergy who refuse to accept anything that doesn't fall within their institution as ignorant and false.

[Anonymous No.15458692]

>>15456441
>>15456540
what