/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16622137]

Where were you when STEMchads refuted the entire field of philosophy?
>"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."
Oh nonononono philosobros we got too cocky

[Anonymous No.16622155]

Feynman is based and has a point but the goals of philosophy differ from the goals of physics so they can both exist simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.16622160]

What you need to understand about Richard is that he, like any thinker, has blindspots. He is a man who not only possesses an immense intellect, but he also has an immensely overabundant life to use it upon and to enjoy. To put it short, Dr Feynman is a very happy man, and you can easily prove this by noting that pretty much every photograph or anecdote featuring him includes a wide grin. Spinoza’s Ethics has a very straightforward title. Ethics are a way to live. Dr Feynman has no use for this. He’s already got it well and figured out. Just be a handsome genius physicist in a time and place where genius physicists are highly sought after, lauded, and supported by their society. You are probably seeing the issue that Dr Feynman might not have been able to see for himself. The ethics is a text taken as a whole is meant to provide guidance, assurance, and insight about life and being. It is meant to be a meditative exercise, to rethink your assumptions, principles and axioms of being, god, and yourself. What am I? What am I doing here? What is a good life? How should I interpret all of these feelings I feel? How can I live a good life? How can I be a good person?

To put it simply, Spinoza's Ethics are of no use to him, so of course he would not understand it.

[Anonymous No.16622172]

>>16622137
This is true about Spinoza. This is not true about Kant, for example

[Anonymous No.16622177]

>>16622137
>>16622172
>Spinoza was a brainle-
"Spinoza was offered the chair of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, but he refused it, perhaps because of the possibility that it might in some way curb his freedom of thought."
>Spinoza was a kike who hated Jesu-
"On 27 July 1656, the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam issued a writ of cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against the 23-year-old Spinoza."
>Spinoza was an athei-
"After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe". He was frequently called an "atheist" by contemporaries, although nowhere in his work does Spinoza argue against the existence of God"
>He had very little influence on philosoph-
"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said, "The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

[Anonymous No.16622187]

>>16622177
Freedom of thought to make stuff up lol

[Anonymous No.16622207]

>My son is taking a course in Quantum Mechanics, and last night we were looking at something by Born and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these wave functions, and Hilbert spaces, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great German physicist, and we're laughing at him. (...) You can take every non-deterministic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and take the deterministic interpretations (many-worlds, etc.), and look at the world and you can't tell which is right.

[Anonymous No.16622216]

>>16622160

interesting post

[Anonymous No.16622219]

>>16622207
Admittedly, though, some deterministic interpretations of QM can and have been empirically disproven (Bell's inequalities and so on).

[Anonymous No.16622225]

>>16622207
>Quantum
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16622240]

>>16622207
Based

[Anonymous No.16622242]

>>16622160
based

[Anonymous No.16622261]

>>16622160
>The ethics is a text taken as a whole is meant to provide guidance, assurance, and insight about life and being.
The problem with philosophy is that it is made up whole-cloth through "reason". Even the Greek philosophers thought up every different alternate philosophy for what was right and true, and they were only shut down by the brute force of Roman Christian Emperors who denied reason for revealed authoritative "Truth"

[Anonymous No.16622262]

>>16622177
Christianity was a prophecy for Spinoza. To this days jews are crying over this. Adorno abandoning his jewishness was based too.

[Anonymous No.16622263]

>>16622160
based and bongos-pilled

[Anonymous No.16622267]

>>16622261
the romans militarily cucked the greeks, but the greeks culturally infected the romans

[Anonymous No.16622276]

>>16622137
lol what a materialist fag

[Anonymous No.16622280]

>>16622267
You're missing the point

[Anonymous No.16622287]

I guess even the most schooled intellectuals can get filtered

[Anonymous No.16622293]

>>16622155
The problem with your statement is that philosophy is a wide topic.
Metaphysics try to explain who the world works, same as physics, but most of metaphysics is in contradiction with physics, for example Spinoza's.
Now is up to you if you decide to trust the empirically proven work of thousands of scientists or the made up bullshit a Jew said a few centuries ago.
When it come to other things in philosophy such as ethics, for example, it's obvious for me your statement is true and I won't discuss it.

[Anonymous No.16622294]

>>16622287
>filtered by utter nonsense
You shouldn't be ashamed of not understanding gibberish

[Anonymous No.16622296]

>>16622137
Feynman is top pseud. He made heuristics and ad-hoc math popular. That's it.

[Anonymous No.16622297]

>>16622280
no, you are

[Anonymous No.16622302]

>>16622276
Funny you say this since Spinoza is considered a materialist.

[Anonymous No.16622308]

>>16622302
>Spinoza is considered a materialist
Only by the most retarded of humans, that is.

[Anonymous No.16622318]

>>16622308
Well, I don't consider him a materialist but it's the people who like him who do it.
Just talk to any university professor who teaches him, and see what they tell you.

[Anonymous No.16622320]

>>16622293
>Metaphysics try to explain who the world works, same as physics, but most of metaphysics is in contradiction with physics, for example Spinoza's.
>Metaphysics try to explain who the world works
>metaphysics
>meta
You realise this means something right? This also means that, yes, metaphysics also has to do with the state of physics but it doesn't mean that you should throw everything every time some scientist discover something.

[Anonymous No.16622326]

>>16622137
he has been proven wrong by the fact that his worldview brought literally rebbit and bugmen, but it was a seductive worldview at his time when it was only followed by chad scientists

[Anonymous No.16622329]

>>16622320
Most of metaphysics is in direct contradiction with physics.
Etymology doesn't matter that much, Spinoza doesn't talk about what's beyond this world, for example, and his thought is restrained to this world.
Furthermore, the metaphysics that can be compatible with physics is one that cannot be proven so discussing it is pointless.

[Anonymous No.16622336]

>>16622160
Great answer. Also theoretical physics was making rapid progress while Feyman was alive. The floodgates had been opened. Somebody like Einstein would likely have had a different response. Progress is easy to laud when close at hand - but sometimes it slows and the path forward becomes clounded - as is now the case in theoretical physics. Speculation and "childish reasoning" become more important than methods of analysis. Feyman was brilliant but he was different to natural philosophers like Newton or Descartes - he was more of a Gallileo. He forgets that science itself emerged as a strange, radical new way of looking at the world. It is easy to criticise the past in hindsight. Feyman certainly had no immediate need for hidden wisdom.

[Anonymous No.16622343]

>>16622293
I agree, but within a philosophical framework, physics is the resulting metaphysics of a materialist ontology and epistemology.

[Anonymous No.16622349]

>>16622137
>You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right
>Thinking is hard so i need """empirical evidence""" to tell me what to think
lol

[Anonymous No.16622364]

>>16622318
>More specifically, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states, "as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"
I guess even in his time, people had bad reading comprehension.
And about university professors, they are all fed up on marxism, and Marx considered Spinoza a materialist. What a surprise.

[Anonymous No.16622365]

"*smirks* Actually, if you can't explain something to a five year old you don't understand it"
"Mr Feyman, can you please explain magnetism to us"
"*smirk flickers* AAAaaah okay, this is one of those days, huh? Alright, so you want to see me cry. You want to see me cry, huh? Well, I will not fall for it, not today, NOT TODAY. I'm not stupid ur stupid . IMNOTSTUPIDURSTUPID. STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID.
Feels good to be a winner."

[Anonymous No.16622367]

>>16622343
Well yes you can consider that physics are always bounded by some metaphysical assumptions, some things seem definitely not able to be proven within physics like the problem of induction.
But these metaphysics are rarely called metaphysics by anybody.

[Anonymous No.16622368]

>>16622137
dis nigga still be in the cave jumpin' at shadows and shiet LMAO

[Anonymous No.16622371]

>>16622364
>"as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"
>(taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter)
Because Nature for him isn't just mass or corporeal matter but the laws ruling over it, this is considered Materialism by most people.

[Anonymous No.16622372]

>>16622294
>I lack the patience and intelligence to understand it therefore it's gibberish
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.16622375]

>>16622137
HO NO A COOMER SIMP HAS SAID HE REFUTED PHILOSOPHY OLALALALLA HO NONONONOHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA

[Anonymous No.16622410]

>>16622365
Kek, I've seen this clip. Accurate.

[Anonymous No.16622416]

>>16622296
Anyone who's had the pleasure of going deep into theoretical physics appreciates Feynman a lot. I dislike him on a personal level (his 'hidden' arrogance which for some reason hardly anyone sees), but he's a master physicist and one of the most intelligent people of the last century. Feynman diagrams and path integrals alone disprove your stupid post already, and that hardly grasps everythings he's done. He's had a hand in theories from QED to condensates to classical mechanics

[Anonymous No.16622441]

>>16622296
Feynman is smarter than nearly every philosopher that /lit/ memes about.

Von Neumann is smarter than any /lit/-related person and most likely the smartest person who ever lived, tied with Newton.

[Anonymous No.16622484]

>>16622137
Everybody in the right is American, too bad that Feynman was made a filthy Philistine Degrasse Tyson-tier by the utter positivist materialism of his nation

[Anonymous No.16622487]

>>16622441
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you probably have this misconception that interest in the sciences equates to greater intelligence. Wagner is more intelligent than Feynman.

[Anonymous No.16622505]

>>16622441
Feynman is smarter in his narrow range of knowledge. He is a savant, not an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.16622506]

>>16622484
Okay, so the importance of philosophy consists in the fact that few esteemed scientists of the past read philosophical works in their free time and their philosophical views had no bearing whatsoever on their scientific work? Got it.

[Anonymous No.16622510]

>>16622441
The memes about Von Neumann can be explained by: (1) his having grown up in an affluent Jewish family with multiple tutors to guide his studies (2) his small clique who praised each other endlessly.
Somebody like Beethoven would be a genius, but not von Neumann.

[Anonymous No.16622512]

>>16622506
>Okay, so the importance of philosophy consists in the fact that few esteemed scientists of the past read philosophical works in their free time and their philosophical views had no bearing whatsoever on their scientific work? Got it.

[Anonymous No.16622514]

>>16622510
Midwit cope

[Anonymous No.16622515]

>>16622137
>You can…look at the world
Now who is being naïve, Feynman.

[Anonymous No.16622516]

>>16622177
Holy based Baruch and checked
>>16622137
>modernist Jew gets filtered by Spinoza
What a shock...

[Anonymous No.16622517]

>>16622506
Einstein cited Hume and Mach as being central to his development of the theory of relativity.

[Anonymous No.16622522]

>>16622514
"No u"

[Anonymous No.16622530]

>>16622487
(Not that guy, but anyway, here goes)
It's not interest in science that equates to greater intelligence, but being so prolific (as both of those guys were) on the cutting edge of human intelligence is something entirely else. Most of us who study both the humanities and the hard sciences/math realize the raw intellect and sheer creativity needed for their achievements is much greater than for /lit/ (or philosophy), but we can definitely still appreciate the humanities as well.

[Anonymous No.16622531]

>>16622416
We should have never funded theoretical physics research. That money should have been spent on fertilizers instead.

[Anonymous No.16622537]

>>16622160
highly skilled posting right here

[Anonymous No.16622546]

>>16622441
>Feynman is smarter than nearly every philosopher that /lit/ memes about.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THIS BRAINLET LOOK AT HIM DANCE

[Anonymous No.16622561]

>>16622207
Interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the thing that is really studied, tbeh.

[Anonymous No.16622562]

>125 iq

[Anonymous No.16622563]

>>16622137
We've been over this. Scientists (physicists in particular seem to be more guilty of doing this for some reason) tend to grossly overestimate their expertise in other fields unrelated to their own, and arrogantly dismiss things they don't understand. In reality their expertise doesn't extend beyond whatever was the subject of their doctoral dissertation, and anything they say outside of that can be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.16622605]

>>16622506
I'm the one to whom you have replied. The key to understand how important philosophy is for science is to consider philosophy not an independent field but a tool, which can be used almost at every independent field, that is to say, a second class knowledge (As Gustavo Bueno claims). Just look at how philosophy spreads, for example, through art with aesthetics and through practical life with politics and ethics. But what about science? In the past, we had speculative metaphysics as the bastion which structured science (this is proven by the fact that most Scientific Revolution guys were theologians to some extent who believed that God manufactured the language through which we understand nature). However, after Kant, metaphysics got completely separated from science and we can easily see this from the fact that most later metaphysicians are mathematically illiterate. But there are still lots of questions in which philosophy has a say at science, those are the fundamental questions and methodology of each field. For example, in physics "What is matter?", in biology "what is life?" , in game theory "What is a game?" and in neuroscience "What is consciousness?"; This questions could be answered by physicists, biologists or neuroscientists, but by answering them they are philosophizing and not practising their own discipline, since these cannot be assured by experimental methods. Moreover, choosing an experimental method is also philosophy as one cannot experiment with the method itself.

[Anonymous No.16622614]

>>16622510
>his small clique who praised each other endlessly

This is what jews do in everything they get involved in, be it science, music, literature, architecture, painting, etc. I don't even believe in /pol/ conspiracies but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see yet another jewish clique form and suck each other's circumsised dicks endlessly until even the goys believe it because everyone else has been eliminated through sheer nepotism and media psyops.

[Anonymous No.16622625]

>>16622484
Dawkins is sickeningly British.

[Anonymous No.16622640]

>>16622563
>physicists in particular seem to be more guilty of doing this for some reason
Perhaps it’s because they see themselves as examining the fundamental aspects of reality, forgetting that even without counting mathematics, physics still doesn’t explain the most fundamental natures of reality

[Anonymous No.16622645]

>>16622297
brainlet

[Anonymous No.16622646]

>>16622160
Posts like this are the brief glimmers of light in /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16622674]

>>16622160
This is also why most canonical philosophers are unmarried at best and "misogynists" at worst. Socrates was famously ugly, Kierkegaard broke off his engagement out of nowhere, Nietzsche got turned down by Salomé, Schopenhauer's opinions on women are well known, Kant died a virgin, etc. In short, the fun-loving, handsome, sociable Chads in this world are too busy having fun and fucking women to think about life and our place in the universe.

[Anonymous No.16622684]

>>16622177
>nowhere in his work does Spinoza argue against the existence of God
Yeah, no shit. But he redefined the word "God" to mean something completely different from what Christians mean when they say "God". I hate this retarded argument so much.
>I define God as this chair
>obviously, this chair exists
>therefore, God exists
>therefore, the Bible is true
Don't be fooled by the hyperbolic simplicity of this argument: my religion teacher in high school used to say that for him "God is love" and because he feels love in his heart, that's enough reason for him to believe God exists.

[Anonymous No.16622686]

>>16622640
I'm sure most physicists understand that most of their theories are oversimplified models for physical reality, not how physical reality actually operates. The actual problem is that they develop massive egos because society treats them like intellectual gods, and they also end up quite ignorant of other fields because their education is so narrow and specialized.

[Anonymous No.16622689]

>>16622137

Science is religion by another name
Two forces equally pure and fit to push against each other indefinitely
An atheist laughs at the bible so a scientist can laugh at philosophy
It's true philosophy is just mud easy to look down on but only a fool underestimates the power of synthesis

[Anonymous No.16622712]

>>16622441
I know you sneaked in the word "nearly" there so people can't come up with counter-examples, but Plato and Kant, to name just two, are magnitudes smarter than Feynman. Plato is arguably the smartest human being to have ever existed, and if you don't believe that; Aristotle came right after.

[Anonymous No.16622717]

>>16622640
>>16622686
Basically every physicist realizes physics' goal is to describe nature, not 'explain' it, but their education being "narrow and specialized" is incredibly ignorant. The reason physicists and mathematicians are sought after is because their education is incredibly general and you can basically go into every quantative field because you have the best basics out of anyone. Of course they're not clasically educated in literature and philosophy, but the reverse is also true. And probably worse; I guarantee more physicists are well read than philosophers educated in maths and science.

[Anonymous No.16622721]

>>16622717
Yeah, I bet you every physicist is capable of differentiating eisegesis and exegesis in their own relationship with a text.

"Reading is easy." And Lolita was asking for it.

[Anonymous No.16622729]

>>16622721
Yeah, let's make it 'every physicist' and ignore the point. Yeah, I bet you every philosopher is capable of differentiating [physics term] and [physics term].

"Physics is just calculating." And approximations are useless.

[Anonymous No.16622731]

>>16622717
It is narrow in the sense that some applied mathematics (only the parts useful for physics) and physics is really all they know. It doesn't mean it can't be applied for other things, but ultimately their skills are very narrow and restricted to mathematical computations.

[Anonymous No.16622737]

>>16622689
>Science is religion by another name
No, it isn't.

>>16622721
You've never interacted with academic physicists, and are reacting solely to memes.

[Anonymous No.16622739]

>>16622729
>Basically
You shat the bed cunt, now you're lying in your shit. I guess you're going to claim that you're a biologist now to recover.

[Anonymous No.16622755]

>>16622365
>Actually, if you can't explain something to a five year old you don't understand it
I always thought this was a dumb argument used as a cope by stupid people, but having it backfire so spectacularly on Feynman when he can't explain magnetism was great to see
>they just DO and if I told you why you wouldn't understand it

[Anonymous No.16622767]

>>16622674
Is philosophy just a massive cope?

[Anonymous No.16622776]

>>16622767
always has been

[Anonymous No.16622784]

>>16622767
yes, glad you realized it soon enough

[Anonymous No.16622800]

>>16622731
I get where this idea comes from, but I don't agree with it at all. Physics is much much more than mathematical computations, just as literature is more than vocabulary. A large part of the world is mathematical literacy, and it's just a fact that the most rigorous mathematical fields are (fundamental) maths and (theoretical) physics, which in turn means they're scientifically more general than any other science discipline (engineering, chemistry...). If your point was that every uni major teaches a very narrow skillset, then sure; but maths and physics are probably the broadest education out of all of them.
>>16622739
I'm obviously a physics student, so no

[Anonymous No.16622816]

>>16622800
To add: I do think many physics students are retarded, but that's just what mass education results in in the year 2020

[Anonymous No.16622834]

>>16622160
Feynman was also heavily lopsided in his intellect. He was notoriously terrible as a verbal thinker. While he was an enormously talented physicist and mathematical thinker, he frequently made basic spelling and grammatical mistakes. It's not very surprising to me that he didn't really get much out of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16622841]

>>16622207
To be fair, Feynman most likely would have agreed with this as well.

[Anonymous No.16622842]

>>16622800
None of the sciences are very broad, physics included. Also theoretical physics isn't very mathematically rigorous at all, the mathematics is very hand-wavy and physicists don't care all that much about rigorous proofs. Compared to what is taught in a real mathematics course the mathematics taught to physicists is laughable. You just happen to learn some more complex computations than what is necessary for engineering but it's still very far away from serious mathematics.

[Anonymous No.16622849]

>>16622506
the bugman has shown itself

[Anonymous No.16622859]

>>16622441
Von Neumann was infamous for stealing the ideas of people lower down in the hierarchy than he was, and making up feats of intellect. Like the fly example: Von Neumann knew the trick but claimed he didn't so as to impress people. The same with his memorisation feats. He used to memorise small snippets of books and recite them as if he knew the entire contents. Colleagues and students of his used to spill the beans about this but unfortunately he still got into pop culture as this sort of alien intellect when he was all too human in the end.

[Anonymous No.16622870]

>>16622842
>Also theoretical physics isn't very mathematically rigorous at all
Anon most people on this board failed high school calculus. Theoretical Physics is absolutely giga-brain tier WittenCHAD level math as far as these people are concerned.

>>16622834
There's an old story about him needing a diagram of a cat to not forget the names of its parts.

[Anonymous No.16622872]

>>16622800
>I'm obviously a physics student, so no
Well at least we can agree that texts can be read, despite their opaqueness, to discover meanings not formally disclosed directly.

Physics is a discipline. It is a pretty good discipline. They get shit loads of appointments out of governments. On the whole they either need huge silly things that cost a lot of money, or they just need a couple of guys in a room, and then a couple of guys in another room to beat the living shit out of two french fraudsters. You know what I mean.

The discursive disciplines in the humanities and social sciences are also disciplines. Some of them fucked the dog and ended up with very little funding like literary criticism. Some of them didn't fuck the dog but ended up with very little funding like theology. Others maintain disciplinary credibility but otherwise eagerly serve the interests of our capitalist masters and ended up with slightly more funding than lit crit like historiography. Others still, like discursive social sciences are basically the theoretical sections of prisons (consider the "Aufheben" scandal).

I don't attempt to make claims about the seeminly replicable phenomenal interactions between objects. Generally physicists, unlike say biologists, have not made criticisms of theology that are 400 years out of date. It is a bit of a shame.

Now at the boundary layer between disciplines we have things like the history of science. It is pretty good. People like Galileo have been demonstrated to have been persecuted for being a shit cunt and not shutting up about theology when he was specifically told that his claims about the seemingly repeatable apparent phenomena were okay, but he should shut his fucking mouth about theology because that was political.

It makes me wish someone had slipped Feynman a copy of Brecht's Galileo and given him a quiet word.

And if you're as apparently as capable of reading as you seem to be, yes I do mean that about threats to Theology's funding. They do text analysis better even than historians. Their lives don't depend on it. Their presence or absence of a soul does.

[Anonymous No.16622881]

>>16622563
It's because physics is a unifying field of study not a particularist field like biology. The best physicists are the ones who make things simpler with sweeping principles. This attitude carries over into most aspects of thought once you get used to it.
>t. Physicist irl

[Anonymous No.16622886]

>>16622293
You mean the made up BS of thousands of Jews, or the proven work some scientist said a few centuries ago

[Anonymous No.16622890]

>>16622872
>I do mean that about threats to Theology's funding. They do text analysis better even than historians.
Imagine, for a minute, if you did fanfiction like your eternal life depended on it. That's how intensely they've developed reading tool kits.

[Anonymous No.16622891]

Stemfags need to take the leadpill.

[Anonymous No.16622896]

>>16622261
Kek, ever heard of history? I know this is /lit/, but please warn us when you write far-fetched historical fiction like this

[Anonymous No.16622923]

>>16622842
The reason specialization is needed nowadays is because physics is TOO broad (yes, it's still in the subset science/physics, doesn't mean it's not broad). It just doesn't make sense to say 'none of the sciences are very broad,' when our world is so science-heavy. None of the humanities majors even touch math besides the minimal statistics and probability, where it's (in my EU country at least) always described as one of the hardest courses of the major, which is laughable. Mind you, I love literature and philosophy and everything about it, but the education for these disciplines is just not 'it'. And definitely not 'broad,' when they don't even touch what the modern world is getting run by (science). I'm not saying science is the whole truth (not at all), I'm saying every education is 'not very broad,' if you say the sciences aren't.

You also seem to have no clue what courses theoretical physicists take; you just repeat what you've seen other people say. It's true the end justify the means; if it describes reality, it's a 'good' theory, regardless of mathematical rigor, but it just so happens almost every physical theory is deeply rooted in rigorous mathematics. You think you can make most hand-wavy derivations without having ANY clue about the underlying principles or without any justification at all? And even if that happens (which it hardly doesn't), physicists immediatly starting a search to try to justify it mathematically.

[Anonymous No.16622949]

>>16622923
>the modern world is run by science.
Oh darling, please investigate how "states" work, and when you're done, "the firm" and "the market."

[Anonymous No.16622956]

>>16622137
someone post it...
>>16622160
ah, there it is, like clockwork

[Anonymous No.16622968]

>>16622441
I unironically have a higher IQ than Feynman.

[Anonymous No.16622975]

>>16622506
You have no knowledge of anything, huh

[Anonymous No.16622976]

>>16622923
>physicists immediatly starting a search to try to justify it mathematically.
No they don't, that usually ends up being a job for mathematicians decades after the fact. Ask anyone who switched from physics to mathematics and they'll tell you how oversimplified and utilitarian your mathematics really is.
>None of the humanities majors even touch math
This isn't important at all, i don't know why you glorify mathematics to such an extent where anything that doesn't feature your dry calculus courses can't possibly be broad, or that it's somehow more broad for featuring it. Your only real expertise is a certain subset of physical phenomena, and the mathematical tools that come with it.
Philosophy is actually a much more broad subject, it ranges from formal logic to ethics, pretty much encompassing every aspect of reality that doesn't have to do with quantification and description.

[Anonymous No.16622979]

>>16622160

Smartest person on the board right here. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16623009]

>>16622717
>I guarantee more physicists are well read than philosophers educated in maths and science.
You are wrong

[Anonymous No.16623038]

>>16622949
No, see, science is a RELIGION man! The scientists, they were LABCOATS which are sort of like ROBES!

>>16623009
>I have never interacted with anyone in STEM
Then why post?

[Anonymous No.16623041]

>>16623038
>>I have never interacted with anyone in STEM
>Then why post?
I'm in a master's program for math

[Anonymous No.16623058]

>>16622976
> Ask anyone who switched from physics to mathematics and they'll tell you how oversimplified and utilitarian your mathematics really is.
The maths is not oversimplified, but it is utilitarian, yes, because physics is supposed to be descriptive. That doesn't mean physicists don't know why they're doing it, or that they're uneducated in the rigorous side of the mathematical tools they use. Sure, extremely rigorous proofs are left to mathematical physicists, I'll give you that (though you tim estimation seems a bit...). I also don't have to ask someone who switched: I double-majored in maths and physics, and half my electives in my master's are in the mathematics department. It's just incredibly naïve to think physicists don't give a rat's ass about the underlying mathematics; if anything, they care too much, looking for 'nice' theories.
> i don't know why you glorify mathematics to such an extent where anything that doesn't feature your dry calculus courses can't possibly be broad
Never said anything like this, see below
> pretty much encompassing every aspect of reality that doesn't have to do with quantification and description.
That's entirely my point. Let's make a crude assumption the world is split up into a quantitative part and a non-quantitative part. To be a well-rounded educated person you need to have knowledge of both. If you say the sciences are not broad because they feature mostly the quantitative part, sure, but then you also have to admit philosophy is not broad because it doesn't feature that part of the world. The only way the sciences are 'not broad' is if you say all form of university education is 'not broad'.

[Anonymous No.16623069]

>>16623058
Go look up what analytical philosophy is, please.

[Anonymous No.16623644]

>>16623069
And this demonstrates what? You realize most of the guys who laid the groundwork were educated as mathematicians (and Wittgenstein even as a 'lowly' engineer), right?

[Anonymous No.16623668]

>>16622160
nice

[Anonymous No.16623670]

This thread again?

[Anonymous No.16623676]

>>16623644
I have been on /sci/ mate, I do find what you've said amusing, especially given his personal life.

[Anonymous No.16623677]

>>16622160
is this a fuckin copypasta?

[Anonymous No.16623679]

>>16622137
>dicto simpliciter: the thread

[Anonymous No.16623696]

>>16623676
I don't go on /sci/, explain

[Anonymous No.16623775]

>>16622371
Exactly this. He was understood to be an atheist because his god amounts to ontological causes, not a personal deity interested in souls and laws.

[Anonymous No.16623791]

>>16622517
fr?

[Anonymous No.16623913]

>>16622160
holy cope-pypasta

[Anonymous No.16623927]

>>16622537
its a pasta dumbass

[Anonymous No.16623942]

>>16622137
Every discipline of science was once philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16624030]

>>16623942
lmao no

[Anonymous No.16624059]

>>16624030
Lmao yes.

[Anonymous No.16624081]

>>16623942
they still are

[Anonymous No.16624101]

>>16622177
Though Spinoza is one of my favorite philosophers, lately I've come to the conclusion that his pantheism (and all pantheism) is some kind of atheism in denial. I cannot conceive an immanent God anymore, I believe that He has to be, somehow, a transendental being.

[Anonymous No.16624109]

>>16624081
Semantically, they are not. The distinction between philosophy and science lies in whether or not the discipline relies on quantitative evidence. Every discipline of science once relied on observational evidence, but have slowly switched towards quantifying phenomena.

[Anonymous No.16624110]

>>16623942
>>16624030
>>16624059
>>16624081
This is the most ridiculous cope and fallacy that people keep spreading on this board. Early science (Egypt and shit like this, early astronomy, etc) predates Greek philosophy (which most seem to agree is when philosophy started) by centuries. For anyone to claim "Science can't exist without philosophy because you use logic in science, and logic was described by philosophy" is just a major cope. Science existed before Philosophy, and just decided to use it when it became useful.

It similarly chose to stop using it when it wasn't useful anymore. The current useless shit philosophers study has no influence on what science is doing right now. Watch brainlets here try to twist their backs into a knot to cope with this.

[Anonymous No.16624118]

See
Ellul on Einstein
Uncle Ted on (((intellectuals)))

Kikeman should fuck off

[Anonymous No.16624124]

>>16622859
This von Neumann is a reddit meme like Tesla. He stole the so called von Neumann computer architecture from guys that already devised it before he ever started working on ENIAC and passed it off as his own. Even wiki admits he’s a fraud.

[Anonymous No.16624131]

Where were you when stemchads, who cretinous philistine Feynman owed his entire career to, upheld and respected philosophy?

“Hence this life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: Tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world'.

Thus you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with the certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you. You are as firmly established, as invulnerable as she, indeed a thousand times firmer and more invulnerable. As surely she will engulf you tomorrow, so surely will she bring you forth anew to new striving and suffering. And not merely 'some day': now, today, every day she is bringing you forth, not once but thousands upon thousands of times, just as every day she engulfs you a thousand times over. For eternally and always there is only now, one and the same now; the present is the only thing that has no end.”

[Anonymous No.16624137]

>>16624110
Just because you don't consider early science to be philosophy doesn't mean it wasn't philosophy. Philosophy is the act of making generalizations based on non-quantifiable evidence and observations. Before scientists were able to use tools like microscopes and telescopes they make generalizations based on the things they saw and experienced. This is philosophy by nature.

[Anonymous No.16624142]

>>16622137
>You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."
Correct actually, which is why the Germans rightfully tried to leave Spinoza in the dust centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.16624155]

>>16622137
Testing

[Anonymous No.16624199]

>>16622684
Yeah but that is retarded. God being the culmination of the quaila that generates and set up emergence is based.

[Anonymous No.16624209]

>>16622160
Based

[Anonymous No.16624211]

>>16622261
What a fucking under 18 post.

[Anonymous No.16624261]

>>16624131
Based Advaitachad

[Anonymous No.16624594]

>>16622160
Holy based

[Anonymous No.16624904]

>>16622484
God damn, where did Einstein learn to write?

[Anonymous No.16624923]

>>16624904
>For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

-Einstein

From Schop. He was a massive fanboy.