NdGT on Philosophy

File: 129 KB, 1200x627, neil-degrasse-tyson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

NdGT on Philosophy Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:53:30 2015 No.6856618 [Reply] [Original]

>My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?

>Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can't move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress.

>How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind. You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that.

Is he right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:55:44 2015 No.6856624 >"what is the sound of one hand clapping? I just tried this, and it makes kind of a "whoosh" sound.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:57:02 2015 No.6856630 >>6856618 >Is he right? idk didn't read any of your greentext bc i don't give a shit what black science guy says

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:57:28 2015 No.6856636 stupid hot take from a supposedly learned man

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:57:32 2015 No.6856637 >>6856618 I'd point out that he, too, cannot cross the street because change in the universe is impossible

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:57:53 2015 No.6856638 >>6856618 If he actually said this, he's very ignorant. I'd like a source though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:58:11 2015 No.6856639 >priest of Scientism >too busy to think Top wew.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:58:13 2015 No.6856640 Kek Dat mechanical mentality Dat reductionism Dat scientism Heidegger was right about evetything We should all move to the Black Forest or Athens

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:59:21 2015 No.6856643 >>6856638 >highlight text >right click >"search google for..." >find the source ta da

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:59:39 2015 No.6856646 >The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind >Implying progress exists >Implying progress would be good if it existed It's like he hasn't read any analytic philosophers or something

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 22:59:57 2015 No.6856648

Not really, if you confine yourself to solely the school of philosophy known as empiricism, this is the outlook you have on other philosophies. Philosophy, or as he says: the meaning of meaning, is meant for us to step back and understand that we do not have all the answers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:00:44 2015 No.6856650 >>6856640 I was guilty of this until a few months ago. Only thought that analytic philosophy was a little important, then I began reading secondary sources on Heidegger and other "post-modern" thinkers and immediately saw the inadequacy of science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:02:03 2015 No.6856658 >>6856643 thanks m8. Don't know how to work technology because I've spent too much time in the Bavarian wilderness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:02:41 2015 No.6856662 File: 86 KB, 650x560, BSG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:03:40 2015 No.6856668 >>6856650 Heidegger isn't postmodern, he's the bridge to pomo Heidegger and are pomo but Heidy isn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:04:42 2015 No.6856676 >>6856668 >Heidegger and Heideggerians

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:05:41 2015 No.6856682 >>6856668 perhaps, I meant more specifically Heidegger as an anti-realist and irrationalist (which are qualities of post-modern thinking) but I'm glad your autism kept me in check.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:09:32 2015 No.6856698

>>6856682
He's neither of those things, though. You can't shoehorn such a unique thinker into those categories. If you read his essays about the logos you'd realize that he's trying to be more authentically rational than the rationalists, who lost track of the true nature of reason as it was understood by the Greeks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:13:55 2015 No.6856711 can someone explain why he is wrong to someone who knows nothing about philosophy? What differentiates a legitimate deep philosophical question from some pseudo intellectual mental masturbation problem?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:14:51 2015 No.6856713 >>6856711 Openness to Being Context Content

>>	Anonymoose Mon Jul 20 23:17:12 2015 No.6856724 >>6856618 >lol whats the point of thinking deeply about anything other than physics.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:23:15 2015 No.6856750
File: 134 KB, 442x338, 1436412356323.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856698
Sure, but in those essays he formulates his arguments with regard to the then convention understanding of a rationalist. But I'm not quite sure what in Heidegger's thinking would qualify him as a realist or as a rationalist (in the conventional sense). I realize you're making sure that I am not performing a category mistake, but for the purpose of a 4chan post I was merely stating that I have come around to new forms of thought I previously didn't appreciate. For that matter, you're not responding to the content of my original point, but just cherry picking one uncritical statement that had little relevance to the meaning of what I had to say.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:24:41 2015 No.6856753 How much people actually know about philosophy is inversely proportional to how useful they think it is.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:26:42 2015 No.6856763

>>6856618

NDGT comes off like a buffoon on Twitter, so it's hard to take any other aspect of his offering seriously. His offerings are about as profound and informed as the average teenager, and he has the creepy habit of quoting himself without citation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:27:47 2015 No.6856767 >>6856618 Lel Muh physicalism Literally triggereby koans science is responsible for a lot of cool shit but niggas need to stay in their lane. Youre not the arbiter of transcendent meaning step off nerds

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:27:48 2015 No.6856769 >>6856750 You're right. I come to /lit/ for the express purpose of arguing about the stuff I study in a vulgar fashion with people I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:28:13 2015 No.6856770 >>6856724 If you talk to any physics professor for long enough, your conversation will inevitably come to this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:28:28 2015 No.6856771 >>6856711 if you keep talkin like that philos aint for you

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:31:48 2015 No.6856788 >>6856769 I do the same shit. It's fine. I wish we could have better discussions on here though :/ I have no friends in when I am away from school who can talk about philosophy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:34:13 2015 No.6856799 >>6856711 He wrong primarily for his superficial treatment of philosophy. Anyone who hasn't studies philosophy should at least be able to grasp that his treatment of the discipline is unfair.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:35:11 2015 No.6856802

He's not even addressing philosophy. There is no substance to what he is saying, no specifics. Nothing. Instead, what he's referring to is a fake image of philosophy that he's conjured, the typical one of where some wise old man rubs his chin and contemplates the "meaning of meaning."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:37:28 2015 No.6856811 >>6856618 Who is he fooling. Quantum Mechanics is applied Chinese philosophy. Relativity is based on the platonic conception of universal constants.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:38:30 2015 No.6856814 >>6856788 that's cause you're a fucking cuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:40:12 2015 No.6856819 >>6856814 I reckon I might

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:44:39 2015 No.6856829 >>6856618 Isn't that what Wittgenstein talked about? leave "meaning" to silence

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:45:28 2015 No.6856832 >>6856711 He's "not even wrong". He says philosophy is useless for "moving forward." Well what is use? What is progress? This requires an examination of values and... oh no! That's philosophy!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:46:08 2015 No.6856836 >>6856668 I thought that his getting rid of the subjective/objective dichotomy was postmodern

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:46:10 2015 No.6856838 File: 175 KB, 900x546, ndtsexist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this dude is sexist as fuck

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:48:49 2015 No.6856842

Why do scientists have such a hard time with philosophy?

Feynman on Spinoza: 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.

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

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:50:42 2015 No.6856847 >>6856836 it is, that guy was a bitch

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:50:56 2015 No.6856848 Isnt Neil just some fag who runs a planetarium? Heard he doesn't actually do any research.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:52:49 2015 No.6856853

Sounds like someone who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy talking about philosophy TBH.
I am disappointed he would be so brash in his ignorance, I'm not disappointed he feels philosophy is not for him.

That all being said its amazing how many people so encapsulated by ideology try to argue that ideology and ideas don't control them.

Its enough to make someone want to go full zizek sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:53:14 2015 No.6856854 >>6856618 The grand priest of scientism rears its ugly head once again. At least Sagan was a bit more subtle about his throbbing desire for "progress" with a capital P.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:53:19 2015 No.6856856 >>6856618 People who agree with this viewpoint are people who don't understand the intimate and often complex relationship between science and philosophy. There are disciplines like philosophy of physics and math for a reason.

Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:53:49 2015 No.6856860

As someone who has similar feelings to NdGT on the subject of philosophy (I've taken one intro level class on it but that's about it) but would love to have my opinion changed, where should I start? I see a lot of people in this thread mentioning Heidegger. Should I give him a read or start with someone else first?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:54:35 2015 No.6856865 >>6856618 This is absurd

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:54:52 2015 No.6856866 >>6856842 damn, I love feynman though

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:55:59 2015 No.6856868 >>6856848 he is one of the most famous astronomy popularizers and spokesman. He probably does better for the community that way then if he actually did spend all his time with research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:56:55 2015 No.6856870 >>6856618 I bet he doesn't even have a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics, fucking pleb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 20 23:57:13 2015 No.6856872 >>6856860 Understanding Kant's metaphysical and epistemic views and then going from there probably makes the most sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:02:58 2015 No.6856881 >>6856842 Yea listen to him talk about math and you get everything you need to go about this guy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:13:45 2015 No.6856908 >>6856836 that started with berkeley and hegel though

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:15:54 2015 No.6856912
File: 71 KB, 500x411, sirjohn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856618
So there are two symbolic languages we use, verbal and mathematical. NDT is a physicist/astronomer who has spent his entire career focusing on the mathematica while only superficially engaging with the verbal to perform so the numbers on his bank account will get bigger (a mathematical concept he understands very well). Unfortunately, we convery some important concepts like self-awareness with verbal language, and he's missed out on such niceties. This is why you may hear litte grumbles of resentment or jealousy towards STEM from people learned in the humanities but only the rares of luddites would claim scientists and engineers are holding anything back despite not understanding what exactly it is they do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:36:29 2015 No.6856970 In a sense, yes, he absolutely is. In a sense.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:40:03 2015 No.6856976 [DELETED]

>>6856711
He is being lazy in quotes of the OP when dealing with philosophy. I don't think he is ignorant like a lot of other anons in this thread think. If you have ever seen him get into an actual argument, like bringing up why we had the space race in the first place, you can see he has a habit of not controlling himself or his emotions. Basically he is flamboyant.

Let's look at what he says
>My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature.

So what examples does he give for philosophers dealing with "nature"? (something he doesn't define and which he justifies, sadly, to himself a few lines later)

>Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?

Not all philosophers do this. He is being lazy in order to make grand claims.

>And so the scientist knows when the question "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress.

Not all, if any, philosophers are dealing with this question. He is being lazy in order to make grand claims.

>How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas.

Here is where things get very sad. It is not just appearances, being lazy, or being assumptive, it is just plain stupid. The first thing you have to ask when reading this statement is, why is there this distinction between ideas and defining words? Why? Wouldn't the two go very well together? Is it even possible to create this overbearing distinction since we must use words and it is very helpful to do so when dealing with "ideas", whatever he means by that?

It's just sad. He may do great work in science, I wouldn't know, but when it comes to logic and debate, he's a sophist at best.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:42:58 2015 No.6856981
File: 728 KB, 1177x1600, 1433070299146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856711
He is being lazy in quotes of the OP when dealing with philosophy. I don't think he is ignorant like a lot of other anons in this thread think. If you have ever seen him get into an actual argument, like bringing up why we had the space race in the first place, you can see he has a habit of not controlling himself or his emotions. Basically he is flamboyant.

Let's look at what he says
>My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature.

So what examples does he give for philosophers dealing with "nature"? (something he doesn't define and which he justifies, sadly, to himself a few lines later)

>Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?

Not all philosophers do this. He is being lazy in order to make grand claims.

>And so the scientist knows when the question "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress.

Not all, if any, philosophers are dealing with this question. He is being lazy in order to make grand claims.

>How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas.

Here is where things get very sad. It is not just appearances, being lazy, or being assumptive, it is just plain stupid. The first thing you have to ask when reading this statement is, why is there this distinction between ideas and defining words? Why? Wouldn't the two go very well together? Is it even possible to create this overbearing distinction since we must use words and it is very helpful to define words when dealing with "ideas", whatever he means by that? I mean really, should we stop defining words? Is that what he is saying?

It's just sad. He may do great work in science, I wouldn't know, but when it comes to logic and debate, he's a sophist at best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:44:50 2015 No.6856987 >>6856811 >Mechanics is applied Chinese philosophy wait wat

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 00:46:15 2015 No.6856992 >>6856624 Your probably disabled son, better check that out.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 02:33:23 2015 No.6857321

>>6856711

Philosophy asks questions about structure. His question assumes things about moving some kind of structure forward.

Its kinda like he is saying "people who wonder about where we are going forget to move forward"

Its not really like that, you do both. No philosopher is telling scientists to stop. They are just thinking about what science if good for and what it should focus on etc. How its currently controlled primarily by capitalism and what that might mean, etc etc etc.
philosophers are not sitting around thinking of xeno's paradox. His caricature of phil is as retarded as someone saying "hurr durr physicists think atoms are tiny muffins" because of that teaching analogy about electrons being raisins in a muffin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:23:59 2015 No.6857843 >>6856836 Hegel did that and Hegel isn't postmodern.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:24:59 2015 No.6857847 >>6856842 Spinoza is pretty terrible, though

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:35:40 2015 No.6857865

Why do people get hung up on meaning? Why should something have meaning? Seems like a hangover from Christianity tbh. People can't seem to get used to a meaningless world since abandoning God. Tyson is right, though, science shouldn't concern itself with questions about meaning and other non-physical, abstract concepts. Scientific research is extremely useful and has improved our lives exponentially and it should continue to extend the breadth of its understanding, but it can't answer certain questions as it can only describe the physical and draw conclusions from observation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:46:11 2015 No.6857881 >>6857865 If you don't get a little hung up on the question of meaning, you're barely awake.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:48:39 2015 No.6857888 >>6857881 You'll get over it eventually, kiddo. One day you'll wake up and realise that meaning isn't necessary and the world around you is nothing more than a chain of cause and effect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:56:00 2015 No.6857905 >Is he right? No, and it's not even worth saying way.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 06:56:09 2015 No.6857906
File: 36 KB, 554x608, izanaskeptical.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856618
>How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas.

Is he seriously implying definitions and the careful construction thereof are not an intensely important part of doing scientific research, or thinking clearly in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:02:33 2015 No.6857923 >>6857905 Because you're a science hating racist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:04:59 2015 No.6857926 >>6857888 >Implying a chain of causes and effects must be empty of meaning >Implying meaning isn't dependent on a set of rules and relations between syntactic units

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:08:10 2015 No.6857930 >>6857926 How would you define meaning, then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:23:24 2015 No.6857963 >>6857930 Meaning is the content of a proposition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:27:29 2015 No.6857972 >>6857963 So, given that definition, how does the universe have meaning?

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:43:30 2015 No.6857991

>>6857972

Propositions exist. This is a given; if you deny this, then you deny that we are communicating, and fall into absurdity and solipsism.
If propositions exist, then the universe contains meaning. This follows from the definition of proposition and the nature of existence. That which exists, exists in the universe. To speak of parallel universes missed the point; the universe is simply the place where existences exist.
Therefore, the universe contains meaning. This follows from P1 and P2. Content is necessarily contained in its container; meaning is the content of a proposition; thus, propositions themselves contain their content. To deny that the existence of propositions entails the universe's containing meaning is absurd.

The content of propositions is determined by their relationships with the rules of their particular language game and the other propositions present in the game. This determination occurs within and between the individual propositions themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:44:40 2015 No.6857994 >pop scientist says something uninformed >bump limit thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:48:08 2015 No.6857998 >>6856618 Always painful to some Dunning–Kruger cunt drowning in ideology without even knowing it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:53:37 2015 No.6858010 >>6856624 you can't clap with just one hand

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:54:15 2015 No.6858011 >>6857991 Okay, the universe contains meaning, by your definition, but does it /have/ meaning itself, as in an overarching meaning, I won't say purpose as that is biologically determined, but, say, a reason to continue existing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:55:18 2015 No.6858014 >>6858010 Just slap your fingers against your palm.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 07:58:24 2015 No.6858017 >>6858014 yeah and flapping my ass cheeks against each other is also clapping right

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:02:25 2015 No.6858024

>>6856618
The audacity of someone who says shit like this and then accuses the nation of having 'Stopped Dreaming' for essentially abandoning a national dick-waving contest must be incredibly disproportionate to his actual achievements.

I say this as someone fanatically in love with the idea of space exploration.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:03:25 2015 No.6858026 >>6858017 Yes, it is possible to clap your arse cheeks together.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:04:16 2015 No.6858028 >>6858017 I flapped my dick against your mom's cheeks last night. It wasn't only philosophycally deep.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:04:33 2015 No.6858029 >>6858017 The booty clap is actually the second most common form of clapping.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:05:06 2015 No.6858031

>>6858011
Can the universe 'have' anything? How is 'having' different from 'containing?' Isn't containment a form of possession?
You seem to be personifying the universe, which seems like a category mistake. Why didn't you ask about a reason to continue existing if that was what you were really concerned with?

I'm Catholic so I believe that God gives all things purpose and serves as the ultimate reason for the existence of things. But I'm not going to try to convince you that God exists here, since this isn't a religion thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:12:03 2015 No.6858042 >>6858031 I'm referring to meaning in the Sartrean sense, the purpose of the universe. I don't believe in any phoney god, so I don't see how the universe can have essence before it has existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:14:20 2015 No.6858046 >>6858042 Sartre is a shit thinker. Read Heidegger or Wittgenstein, then get back to me. Existentialism is predicated upon a misunderstanding of Heidegger's analytic of Being and his concept of authenticity. >phoney You're a cool guy, Holden.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:16:26 2015 No.6858049 >>6856662 thread/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:17:27 2015 No.6858051 >>6858046 >shit Great criticism. >Holden It was A A Lewis, nice try, though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:20:11 2015 No.6858054 >>6858051 What do you think of the second, more substantial, criticism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:26:38 2015 No.6858066 >>6858054 Heidegger can't even spell being, let alone define it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:28:23 2015 No.6858069 >>6858066 That's the best you've got? He can certainly spell being, and he doesn't even want to define it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:30:09 2015 No.6858073 >>6858069 He can't spell it, he uses an upper case b ffs. You just got caught up in his mystic word spinning so much that you started believing he had solved the mysteries of the universe. Get over yourself, Nazi lover.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:30:44 2015 No.6858076 >>6856618 he' right; metaphysics only concerns dumb nerds and would've never lead us to anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:31:22 2015 No.6858077 >>6858073 >he uses an uppercase b ffs Is this bait?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:31:56 2015 No.6858081 >>6856753 So if they know a lot about philosophy they think it's useless?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:32:56 2015 No.6858084 >>6858077 Hi, Jaden.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:33:32 2015 No.6858088 >>6858084 Yeah, it's bait.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:35:11 2015 No.6858092 >>6856860 Extremely surprised nobody has mentioned the Greeks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:41:32 2015 No.6858099 >>6856832 1. doesnt help scientific progress 2. helps us know the unknown in nature boom philofags just got BTFO

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:41:47 2015 No.6858100

>>6856618
He obviously doesn't understand philosphy. If he's so set on the clapping example, a philosophic line of reasoning may treat clapping as a form of expressing a positive opinion in a group, and ask what, as a social force, clapping does to us as people. How does it affect the ego of a celebrity to be clapped at? Does it create delusions of grandeur? What does it say about the way we treat children that we place them in situations where they are clapped at in artificial scenerios where their only requirement is to merely be there (school plays or talent shows). What implications does that have on work ethic, general ego, the family structure, etc.

So no, Tyson is a fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:47:47 2015 No.6858115 >>6856630 excellent pooppost, comrade!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:48:43 2015 No.6858117 >>6858100 >a philosophic line of reasoning may treat clapping as a form of expressing a positive opinion in a group, and ask what, as a social force, clapping does to us as people That is investigated by social sciences, not philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:49:59 2015 No.6858120 >>6858117 >Implying analytic philosophy doesn't involve itself with the social sciences

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:50:01 2015 No.6858121 >>6856853 what' wrong with zizek?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:51:09 2015 No.6858123 >>6856860 Start with the greeks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:51:53 2015 No.6858124 >>6858121 "go full zizek" is a slang for sniffing blue crystal

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:53:07 2015 No.6858126 >>6858121 Some kind of fungal infection.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 08:54:40 2015 No.6858128

>>6858121
Everything.
>Lacanianism
>Stalinism masked by jokes
>A lack of anything resembling a plan
>Disorganized writings
>Uses films and works of fiction to prove points about the real world
>Is an American citizen (right? correct me if I'm wrong about this) but never discusses American politics with anything resembling an understanding of the mechanics of American society beyond 'muh capitalism' (not that his critique of ideology is unwarranted)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:00:03 2015 No.6858141 >>6858128 >is an American citizen Can't find anything that would confirm that claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:00:11 2015 No.6858142 >>6858128 He has some kind of Oedipal thing going with Chomsky too.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:00:56 2015 No.6858145

>>6858100
you missed the point of the one hand clapping thing

one hand cannot clap, so the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping" can be seen as "what is [self-contradictory idea]"

obviously it is a concept with internal self-contradictions. To try to answer the question in terms of sound and hands and clapping reveals one in the grip of the illusion of words. The answer is rather to realize that one is being asked a question which does not make sense, to zoom out and see what is really going on. After doing this, one can abstract out the pattern of [recognize internal contradiction/absurdity] [zoom out] [re-orient] [proceed] rather than endlessly wrestling with meaningless questions.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:02:57 2015 No.6858150

>>6858128
>>Lacanianism
zizek hates Lacan, he disregards the central project of his theory and detours it to re-read hegel
>Stalinism masked by jokes
that's a lie
>>A lack of anything resembling a plan
literally fedora tier leftism, how's your historical reenactment society going? got a plan for your revolutionary working class avant garde yet? also, he's the closest to constructing a revolutionary project, he is also obviously right about more philosophy being required to have any kind of serious political project in the 21st century
>Disorganized writings
what are you? a baby? don't you have an education? his writing is also not that bad, you're just going off the "muh postmodernist writing" trope, even though he rejects post-structuralism
>>Uses films and works of fiction to prove points about the real world
you do know that films and works of fiction are part of the real worl, right?
>>Is an American citizen
are you legitimately retarded? yeah, you are

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:03:38 2015 No.6858152 File: 431 KB, 1000x562, quote-Stephen-Hawking-why-are-we-here-where-do-we-124567.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] But scientists say philosophy is a waste of time! Science and progress is awesome xD

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:04:18 2015 No.6858154 >>6856618 lol im just laughing my ass off, this guy is retardingly fucking serious and seriously fucking retarded, youd think that a philosopher of the natural world wouldnt at least commit such sophistry as he did.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:05:18 2015 No.6858157
File: 34 KB, 480x486, enhanced-7027-1403279043-14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856618

In the Navy we don't clap with both hands, we clap one hand on the table. It's a tradition, but nonetheless, clapping with one hand is the sound of a palm rapping on hardwood.

That aside, when I read 'The Prince' by Machiavelli and later 'History of Florence' I was intrigued by the matter-of-fact tone and the simple elegant structure of the prose. I thought to myself 'Wow, is this what all philosophy is like?'. Then I started reading Nietzsche and all I heard was mental masturbation about nothing.

I believe philosophy should be simple and grounded in reality. Deep questions need simple logical practical answers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:06:51 2015 No.6858158 >>6856630 Stop it. Stop poo mailing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:07:00 2015 No.6858159 >>6858157 Simple answers for a simple man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:07:22 2015 No.6858160 >>6858157 >Then I started reading Nietzsche and all I heard was mental masturbation about nothing. you can change nietzsche for any other existentialist and it would be correct tbh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:07:57 2015 No.6858161 >>6858150 Zizek doesn't hate Lacan. He's literally a Lacanian psychoanalyst.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:08:54 2015 No.6858163 >>6858161 >b-but lacan is in the name, it c-can't be right? zizek will literally tell you straight up that lacan was a failure and a dangerous egoist

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:10:22 2015 No.6858165 Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:11:12 2015 No.6858166 >>6858157 >i believe philo should plebs leave now tbh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:11:25 2015 No.6858167 >>6858165 >>6858163

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:11:44 2015 No.6858168 >>6858159 This is the kind of obfuscating attitude Foucault complained about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:12:07 2015 No.6858169 File: 29 KB, 600x600, 3645735786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858159 There is no shame in being a simple man.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:12:40 2015 No.6858170

>>6856618
>Slams philosophy as some sought of pointless delay and that they concern themselves with finding the deepest meaning
>Goes on to explore his idea and define what philosophy does
>Has wasted time complaining about philosophy instead of "progressing" in science in a useless interview.
>Fails to push any real scientific agenda

This guy is constantly living of the back of other peoples work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:13:05 2015 No.6858171 >>6856618 >Scientist has a dumb opinion on something outside of his field :o

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:14:02 2015 No.6858173

>To do math, you need a pencil, paper and a trash bin
>To do philosophy, you need a pencil and a paper

Philosophy is just a brain teaser, a luxury, for those with too much time on their hands, nothing else. It stems from the fact that we as a pattern-seeking animals can't deal with unknown, unexplained and randomness and therefore have to inject meaning into everything, everything has to have a higher purpose, everything has to be explained, etc.
Same as religion really, except philosophy is more consistent.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:15:01 2015 No.6858175

>>6858167
not gonna spoonfeed you, it's in a talk somewhere and probably in a book too, but I remember him saying something almost exactly like
"I don't care about that shitty idiot Lacan, egoist and so on, he set himself some problems and he didn't solve them"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:17:26 2015 No.6858179 >>6856698 kek yeah okay

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:17:45 2015 No.6858180

>>6856618
>Is he right?
yes, or no, or whatever it doesn't matter

nothing matters, if you think it does you're mistaken, though not through any fault of your own, because 'you' don't exist given that hard determinism is an inescapable reality

the only possible claim against nihilism is the existence of a god, yet belief in a god is as much an illusion as consciousness

moreover even if there was a god it couldn't make the judgments that traditional religion tell us it will because free will does not exist and therefore our actions are not our own

either that or it still will judge us and there's nothing we can do about it because it would recognise that our actions are not based on free will so there's no point contemplating it, or it may not understand that the universe is deterministic in which case it's not what we would call a god but just some thing that decided to judge us after we die for no particular reason and may get bored and ignore us for eternity, we just don't know

regardless of what the case may be it doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:18:03 2015 No.6858181 >>6858175 actually, here, have these remarks, but they weren't what I was getting at https://youtu.be/CbY864P0nuI?t=168

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:19:11 2015 No.6858184 >>6858175 Well, you should try to be a bit more specific than that if you want me to believe you. If you don't want me to believe you, you probably don't care about being correct, so this conversation isn't even worth having.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:20:59 2015 No.6858192 File: 47 KB, 600x600, 3540378090_photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858180 >Hard determinism >An inescapable reality Please to explain

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:23:55 2015 No.6858200

>>6856618
Of course he is wrong philosophy and science work in the same sense that it is about who can tell the best story and cover the best plot wholes, the only difference is that philosophy does it with more logic as opposed to science almost covering up.

If a scientist finds a plot in his theory, he will say there is some hidden factor, a particle, a new something.

If a philosopher has a plot whole in there argument his argument becomes flawed and he has to find reasoning to why it is.

If he was truly concerned then why isn't he pushing forward his theories instead of complaining about philosophers to drum up media attention. His trying to prove his importance by being a naysayer and complaining about philosophy which has actual gave meaning to logic and the way people think and inspired who people are. It doesn't make sense to blame or mock that.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:24:49 2015 No.6858201

>>6858180
>is as much an illusion as consciousness

I'm sick of reading this shit. Why the fuck do people keep regurgitating what is self-evidently an absurd statement? You only need to think about that for a literal second to see why it's wrong. Or are you a zombie robot?

Consciousness is the only self-evident truth you will ever experience in your entire life, and you say it's an illusion. An illusion being played on whom? Read some Descartes. Read about solipsism.

Just because something cannot be explored by science or described in mechanistic detail does not mean it does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:25:10 2015 No.6858202 >>6858181 He says here that he's a fan of Lacan's basic propositions. He explicitly says that there's not nothing behind his obscurity. This whole video is a defense of Lacanianism.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:25:47 2015 No.6858205

>>6858192
natural forces act in a predictable manner, the entirety of existence is governed by natural forces

all that remains is to scale up the predictable interactions of quarks bumping into other quarks to subatomic particles, then atoms, molecules, macromolecules, cells, integrated living systems and so on

the sheer scale of interactions at the level of a human brain is beyond our comprehension, however if we understood completely the position, state, charge etc. of all the component particles and had the necessary processing power available it would be entirely possible to simulate their interactions thus 'predicting' the outcome

determinism is fucking scary, hard to grasp and depressing, but it's true

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:26:10 2015 No.6858208 >>6858200 >If a scientist finds a plot in his theory, he will say there is some hidden factor, a particle, a new something. 'no'. Also youre spelling is atrocious, are you 12?

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:27:21 2015 No.6858211
File: 14 KB, 223x346, basic writings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6856860
Heidegger had some interesting things to say about science and philosophy, but he's notoriously difficult and abstract, so I wouldn't recommend just picking up something by him and going for it. Try watching 'Being in the World' as your introduction (http://beingintheworldmovie.com/).). Then pick up the Basic Writings anthology. Read the forward and introduction, and then try The Essence of Truth, The Question Concerning Technology. These are some of his easier essays. A secondary source like the Blackwell Companion to Heidegger would also be really good to have.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:29:22 2015 No.6858217
File: 163 KB, 670x958, old-tree_2a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6858157
Deep questions are just questions that highlight the artificiality and ultimate inadequacy of the framework we find ourselves in (what you call reality). Practical philosophy (ie science) can never solve the problems that are inherent in its own framework, and that's why philosophy is still relevant

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:29:33 2015 No.6858218

>>6858205
it's only potentially true within the empirical model

you're not practicing particularly good science by leaping to a conclusion based on our pretty meagre understanding of the universe

that's not to even speak of the assumptions built into the empirical model. to you the subject, objective truth exists merely as a concept, not as an actual thing

this comes from someone who was intensely bummed out by the concept of determinism for a solid couple of months

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:29:47 2015 No.6858221 File: 20 KB, 527x409, bait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858073

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:32:40 2015 No.6858225 >>6858211 Oh, also Math, Science and Metaphysics might be up your alley, but I haven't read that one yet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:33:57 2015 No.6858228 >>6857843 >Hegel isn't postmodern Yes, he is. His critique of Enlightenment signalled the beginning of postmodernism.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:34:26 2015 No.6858229

>>6858200
hes right that philosophy is useless though tbh

imagine, every philosopher in history couldve wondered about electric phenomena and none of them wouldve gotten anywhere until they started doing things the scientific way, that is, empirically

philosophy is a waste of time tbh

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:35:30 2015 No.6858233

>>6858046
>Existentialism is predicated upon a misunderstanding of Heidegger's analytic of Being and his concept of authenticity.
Well, sorta, but Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were also influential on the field as well. Sartre once said that Kierkegaard spent his whole life trying to find out how to be Christian, while he spent his whole life trying to find out how to be an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:38:07 2015 No.6858238 >>6858228 You must have a pretty broad definition of postmodernism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:40:47 2015 No.6858243 >>6858205 determinism made me feel safe but then i realized it was bullshit when I made the active choice of not taking a meal now in exchange for eating a better meal later.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:42:11 2015 No.6858250 >>6858243 You were always going to make that choice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:42:34 2015 No.6858252 >>6858243 but it wasn't a choice to begin with, it was going to happen

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:42:54 2015 No.6858254

>>6858229
not same person.

However, Philosophy defies everything we have today; it does not hold the scientific community back in any sense, he is wrong to talk shit about philosophy being useless because it could have meaning or value to someone which might lead to a change or progression into contributing something whether technologically or scientifically.

If someone finds meaning in philosophy it is irrelevant to science, asking questions is why we have empirical science, the questions we ask today might change, denouncing philosophy as nothing more then useless while contributing nothing but a useless article complaining about how philosophy holds back progressive science while not actually progressing anywhere in the article about science is useless and proves nothing but the hypocrisy of a scientist holding onto being a faded meme.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:43:38 2015 No.6858257 >>6858157 Heh, you got suckered by Machiavelli. Have fun thinking he believed things he didn't believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:43:57 2015 No.6858258 >>6858252 >>6858250 prove it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:44:22 2015 No.6858260 >>6858205 >The interaction of particles on the quantum scale is completely predictable When will you collect your Nobel Prize?

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:45:26 2015 No.6858263

>>6858229
do you even think?

bruh, empiricism does not emerge through an empirical practice, but from a vague, philosophical meta-analysis. it's impossible to create empirical thought from pure observation. You have to makes some unprovable leap first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:46:03 2015 No.6858265 >>6858238 I do, yeah. Really broad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:46:07 2015 No.6858266 >>6858228 Post-modernism as defined by Lyotard is "the end of all great narratives". The whole Hegelian project is the unveiling of ontological arch-narrative: The Ideal coming to know itself

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:46:50 2015 No.6858270 >>6858263 >tbh You fell for the b8, m8.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:48:37 2015 No.6858275 >>6858265 What is your definition, then? Also >>6858266 is correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:50:35 2015 No.6858282 >>6858258 Learn biology, pleb.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:51:38 2015 No.6858285 >>6858282 Biology doesn't make claims about the univers'es determinate or indeterminate nature, it only reports facts, like every other branch of science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:51:51 2015 No.6858286 >>6858282 >I base my philosophical beliefs on an incomplete understanding if neurobiology and physics Simbly ebin

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:52:34 2015 No.6858289 >>6858285 Cause and effect, bitch, you ain't free.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:53:09 2015 No.6858291 Determinism is in itself a metaphysical concept It's like you people never read Hume.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:53:30 2015 No.6858293 >>6858286 >instead I base mine off of my feelings

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:53:38 2015 No.6858295 >>6858289 How does causality prove determinism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:53:41 2015 No.6858296 >>6858282 >implying biology is capable of making such a broad metaphysical claim >telling me to learn biology you first

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:54:20 2015 No.6858297 >>6858293 I don't. I just don't pretend to know what I can't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:54:53 2015 No.6858300 >>6858289 and, pray, tell me, where is the peer reviewed journal that says this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:55:11 2015 No.6858301 Another scientism idol riding the wave of "englightened" ignorance. Aside: What kind of political implications does he aim at with what he said? If people start turning on "useless" accademic faculities, astornomy will be one of the first to get cut.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:55:32 2015 No.6858302 >>6858293 >I disregard my feelings so that I can make claims about things I don't understand while feeling intellectually inferior

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:55:36 2015 No.6858304 >>6858295 It might if all physical interactions were causal. For all we know some might not be. This guy's 'proof' of hard determinism would be more believable if quantum mechanics didn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:56:12 2015 No.6858306 >>6858296 Anything to do with human action can be determined by examining the brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:56:37 2015 No.6858308 >>6858304 Quantum mechanics is causal you dip. The SE has unique solutions.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:56:54 2015 No.6858309

>>6858282
nice b8 but the choices of genders comes down to probability and many factors of genes and forms from within sperm cell, not magic mate. This is because someone had the free will to make a choice, that choice led to probability of biology, just because we have singular outcomes doesn't dictate that its determinant. Think about it kid before you let someone tell you how to think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:58:36 2015 No.6858314 >>6858308 It's not predictable in the same way as quantum mechanics and you know it. Maybe causal was a bad choice of words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 09:59:52 2015 No.6858317 >>6856860 Orgy of the will

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:01:36 2015 No.6858321 File: 869 KB, 512x481, 1434033731825.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858317 >tfw i dreamt I met icycalm and he was a really nice dude

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:02:04 2015 No.6858324 >>6858017 >never making dat booty clap

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:03:00 2015 No.6858327 >>6858306 is this empirically proven? sounds like you're starting from a foregone conclusion >pure ideology

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:03:39 2015 No.6858329 >>6858321 I think he is a sociopath though...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:04:08 2015 No.6858331 >>6858327 Who, ITT, are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:06:12 2015 No.6858333 >>6858308 >The SE has unique solutions. this is determinism

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:06:57 2015 No.6858335 >>6858333 What's the difference between determinsim and "cause and effect"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:07:30 2015 No.6858338 >>6858317 >Orgy of the will at last i find again this website

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:07:48 2015 No.6858341 >>6858333 Take an introductory quantum mechanics class. It's not hard you can probably do it after a year of calculus

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:09:57 2015 No.6858346

>676. A great mistake the anti-religious fanatics make is lumping all religions together under the label of "religion" as if they were equal. But Nietzsche has clearly explained that Christianity stands lower than Buddhism, and Buddhism stands lower than the pagan religions of the various nations � and especially those of classical antiquity � which themselves stand lower then the religion of the future: philosophy/Overman worship. So... if by "the comeback of religion", which, it is now dawning on some, may now be under way, they mean "the comeback of faith" � after the temporary suspension in our estimation of the value of faith caused by the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution � they are correct. But the faith that will dominate and shape the future is no longer the faith in external gods, but in the gods within us.

>675. And what about the upper class? The upper class poses no threat to the civic order; it just wants to be left alone to sort out its inner rivalries and keep working on its plans. It's only a threat to OTHER societies, to other nations and other cultures, not to its own; while internal threats all stem from ressentiment, and are therefore the exclusive province of the lower class; of any individual who falls below the average in the society as a whole. Think of the upper class as the engines driving the airplane of society forward, with the lower class representing aerodynamic drag (the universe's reaction to the engines' action), while the fuselage of the middle class holds the entire thing together and carries out the bulk of the day-to-day uninspired and uninspiring work, and you won't be too far off an understanding of how a human society works, irrespective of culture concerned or the type of structure used to govern it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:10:23 2015 No.6858347 File: 26 KB, 526x361, facepalm-bert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] jesus holy fucking christmas crackers this fucking thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:10:41 2015 No.6858348 >>6856838 He's right though Fat people are disgusting

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:11:09 2015 No.6858350
File: 382 KB, 3072x2304, r-1024-768-obzor-iuni.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>670. The Armenians: a people primarily known for insisting on reminding everyone and commemorating the day that they were slaughtered. It took them billions of years of evolution to arrive at this, hitherto unknown, survival tactic and perfect it: "the art of using one's own misfortune like a credit card" (Baudrillard).

>669. Approach and try to fuck a couple hundred girls and you will see the rationality in arranged marriages and taking sexual choice away from women. Even if they like you they'll sabotage the proceedings time and again and fuck it all up, simply because they are stupid, and if you have even the slightest amount of choice you'll be discarding decent prospects left and right simply because of lack of patience to deal with their stupid bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:11:40 2015 No.6858353 >>6858293 yall really need to read Hume

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:12:58 2015 No.6858354 File: 37 KB, 474x528, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858346 >Nietzsche said it so it must be true

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:14:20 2015 No.6858359 >>6858329 Eh, I don't know. What makes you say that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:18:16 2015 No.6858373 >>6858354 >nietzsche said it so it must be wrong

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:19:14 2015 No.6858374
File: 104 KB, 840x630, eye_ang_res.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6858335
I should have said, determinism in a mathematical perspective

cause and effect is just a concept in physics, a priori not formalized beyond the logical implication [in logic thus]

first you must talk about what it is:

A simulation of a abstract system is to know exactly, from a initial condition/state, the final condition/state after a (typically temporal) evolution of the system. This is crunching numbers before the events IRL. IF the predictions is verified, this is called determinism.

>In passing, reminder that QM outputs deterministically, from the SE, the probabilities of the results/final states (instead of outputting deterministically the results/final states, like it would be the case in Classical mechanics).
By our definition of the knowledge, we do not know if the model works before crunching the numbers and compare with the phenomenon.

I do not think that a human can know the initial condition [of whatever system he studies, especially if he is the system itself], let alone the laws that he must use.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:19:22 2015 No.6858375 >>6858354 how does nietzsche look like without his mustache?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:20:44 2015 No.6858379 File: 247 KB, 612x861, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858375 Ugly

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:21:30 2015 No.6858383 >>6858379 is there a frontal?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:22:45 2015 No.6858386 File: 195 KB, 612x861, nietzsche-at-17[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858383 he's 17 though

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:24:49 2015 No.6858392
File: 107 KB, 590x349, heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Science is the most irrelevant thing out there today.

Philosophy depsite it's insularity, provokes and shakes the average individual far more than the typical and shallow understanding of the natural world. Why? Because after centuries of science we have simply arrived exactly where Bohr and Heisenberg were already hinting we would arrive.

Nature at heart is not only dumb, without design or purpose but it is entirely unkowable at it's core and we are condemned to project unto this black wild 'unkown" all of our beliefs, prejudices and deterministic theories. But at heart we know that Entropy and Chaos rule the universe, even though that fact terrifies the scientists.

This is why science will quickly become irrelevant, the big theoretical experiments are over and we are entering a technological age, "techne" meaning the way Heidegger meant it as enframing ("Gestell").

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:25:45 2015 No.6858396 >>6858386 huh, kind of disappointing, i wanted him to be a 10/10 ubermensch looking kind of guy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:26:08 2015 No.6858398 >>6858386 looks like a long haired paul latza

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:27:45 2015 No.6858402 File: 36 KB, 500x333, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858392

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:30:14 2015 No.6858407

>>6858301

The war against teh social sciences was first initiated by Popper and the Mont Pelerin Society. It is no coincidence that the Anglo-Saxons are so furiously trying to undercut any type of theory that challenges the unholy alliance of neo-liberalism and techno-scientism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:31:20 2015 No.6858412 >>6858402 Brilliant retort fellow redditor, upvoted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:31:47 2015 No.6858415 File: 174 KB, 416x396, YHl7f2k.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858392 >humanities fags actually believe this >solely because they don't understand science and then go sour grapes on it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:32:37 2015 No.6858417 >>6858412 You really should listen to yourself for once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:35:29 2015 No.6858426 >>6858412 There's nothing of substance worth replying to. You barely seem to understand what science is much less the fact that it can be applied everywhere from engineering to philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:35:47 2015 No.6858428

>>6858415

I'm not anti-science you dolt. What I'm saying is that science is becoming irrelevant.

Science is too a philosophical theory on how to understand the world and it begun with the Ionian philosophers and Aristotle.

But the metaphysics of science are quickly reaching an end-point, since it's enframing of being overwelms it. Technological automation will eventually usurp scientific thinking and one day end it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:39:52 2015 No.6858443 >>6858428 What's this "technological automation" and how does it make, say, more intricate computers without using the scientific method to formulate how electricity interacts on a quantum scale?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:39:57 2015 No.6858444 >>6858428 >What I'm saying is that science is becoming irrelevant. >typed on a computer and published on the internet

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:40:56 2015 No.6858448

>>6858426

And you should learn to read. Where did I opposed science's usefullnes or aplication?

What I claimed is that science as a mode of thinking will eventualy end and it will be replaced by the endless demand for "reserve" of technology. Science is just not usefull enough.

Read some Heiddi, because if you don't you are attacking someone solely based on your prejudices without getting what he is trying to say.

>"Through such requisitioning [Bestellen] the land becomes a coal reserve, the soil an ore depository. This requisitioning is already of a different sort from that whereby the peasant had previously tended his field. Peasant activity does not challenge the farmland; rather it leaves the crops to the discretion of the growing forces; it protects them in their thriving. In the meantime, however, even the tending of the fields [die Feldbestellung] has gone over to the same requisitioning [Be-Stellen] that imposes upon the air for nitrogen, the soil for coal and ore, the ore for uranium, the uranium for atomic energy, and the latter for orderable destruction. Agriculture is now a mechanized food industry, in essence the same as the production of corpses in the gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as the blockading and starving of countries, the same as the production of hydrogen bombs.'

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:42:10 2015 No.6858451 >>6858444 technology and science are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:43:17 2015 No.6858456 >>6856618 obv. he is not right. Why should philosophy be open to attacks from science and not the other way around. I feel like most scientists even believe natural laws are prescriptive, the poor idiots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08MkPM8es

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:51:51 2015 No.6858476 >mfw philosophy is thinking as nothing lies outside it in the realm of thought >mfw scientists are against thinking does this surprise anyone

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:53:20 2015 No.6858481 >>6858152 Philosophy is dead, and we have killed him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:55:52 2015 No.6858485 >>6858257 Liberals please go, the "Enlightenment" was purely social decay.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 10:57:20 2015 No.6858490

>>6858359
Ive read a lot about sociopaths and spent a lot of time with them irl... im on my phone so i dont feel like typing out a lot of my reasoning... read up on psychopathy and maybe you will see...
Also, i think the guy has many good ideas, and speaks a lot of truths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:05:03 2015 No.6858518 >>6858208 >youre spelling is atrocius

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:05:57 2015 No.6858523
File: 987 KB, 1164x1649, Thinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6858152
>>6856618
Is anybody else alarmed by the fact that people take this shit seriously?

Like Hawking's philosophy is dead nonsense.

Scientists are of course important, but why are people so willing to accept every word that comes out of their mouth? I wouldn't take NdGT's misinformed opinions on philosophy any more than his views on international politics or the economy. He is an astrophysicist; he doesn't understand philosophy in the same way a philosopher would not understand astrophysics...and why would it be any other way?

NdGT, and to a lesser extent Hawking, are like acting like immature undergraduate STEM students when they say shit like this, which wouldn't be bad if they didn't have so much sway over peoples' opinions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:06:40 2015 No.6858524 >>6858205 >babbies first hard determinism anxiety Hang in there sport

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:07:08 2015 No.6858527 >don't have thoughts about things that aren't useful, if science can't answer it then just don't think about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:08:03 2015 No.6858530 >>6858523 Because Modernity is a disease of the mind. Fucking Descartes. Fucking Spinoza.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:08:48 2015 No.6858531 >>6858523 Science is one of the last exciting narratives now that religion and heroism is kill at least in the West, that's why vocal 'scientists' (YMMV regarding Tyson) can portray themselves as idols.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:13:30 2015 No.6858542 >>6858530 Don't put Descartes and Spinoza on the same level, pleb.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:16:09 2015 No.6858546 >>6858542 >>6858530 I was thinking this too. Spinoza cleaned up Descartes a little with naturalism.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:18:06 2015 No.6858550

>>6858490
Yeah, might be true. He's a criminal, he said something about having stolen his parents car and drove it through shopping windows and he's definitely amoral. Those things might just be him being a nietzschean though, and a spoiled greek delinquent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:20:16 2015 No.6858556 >>6858550 >He's a criminal, he said something about having stolen his parents car and drove it through shopping windows and he's definitely amoral >nietzschean None of that is Nietzschean, kek.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:25:40 2015 No.6858567

>>6858556
Yeah but he thinks so

>Icycalm feels his crimes are justified because he believes he is a Nietzschean Ubermensch and as such is above good and evil. He considers the rest of the human race to be “subhumans” and so therefore believes they deserve to be exploited.

https://icycalmisacriminal.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/icycalm-is-a-criminal/

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:26:54 2015 No.6858569

>>6858550
Yeah those are 2 indicators, also his behavior on his forums (eg. passing peoples private mail addresses to his minions to raid them, creating a kind of personality cult and silencing any opposition), and the way he approaches many subjects in a way that empaths would have trouble with.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:37:39 2015 No.6858610

>>6858546
Spinoza introduced his own problems into Cartesianism. His conception of divinity is inadequate and the distinction between Natura naturata and Natura naturans is dubious. It's just the essence/energies distinction rephrased so that atheists can call something God.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:42:28 2015 No.6858624

>>6858567
That description is more tyrannical (of which Nietzsche wrote about) than Nietzschean. For example the Ubermensch was an attempt at developing a new type or category whereas that paragraph uses it in singular form.

Seemed like he was one of the few people who treated videogames theoretically rather than commercially.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:45:23 2015 No.6858633

>>6858556
isn't crime more nietzschean than work?
and the car thing i attributed to delinquency
and amoral is maybe the wrong word idk
>>6858569
regarding his forums, they seem to function more like an interactive notebook and a place to publish less polished or smaller things for him, rather than an actual forum
it was never intended to be a "public" forum like /v/
though the atmosphere feels very subdued outside of his own posts i agree

>and the way he approaches many subjects in a way that empaths would have trouble with.
example?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:47:33 2015 No.6858639 File: 54 KB, 610x402, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:51:51 2015 No.6858653 What does it matter that Neal 'smokes deGrass' Tyson thinks? The worst that happens is he discouraged the close minded from pursuing philosoph

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:54:10 2015 No.6858660 >>6858653 >what does it matter that popular vocal figures with large followings have to say about topics of sociopolitical or accademic interest? >surely opinionmakers don't have any real life impact on the world

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:57:05 2015 No.6858667 >>6858660 They really don't

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 11:57:12 2015 No.6858668

71. The best thing that happened to the blacks was that they were taken slaves.

77. I do not understand women and never will; I don't even want to. To desire to belong to someone, to long to be overpowered and commanded — such longings do not seem merely tough to empathize with to me but even absurd. How could anyone wish for such a thing? If I understood it at all it would mean that I am not a man, and by no means constitute a triumph of understanding on the male part of the species. Male and female: this means separate to all eternity, and all touted understanding is merely superficial. The reality, the truth, the essence of the difference are to all eternity ungraspable.

193. How unfathomably degenerate the subhuman is can be seen from the fact that in order to help him catch a whiff of the true constitution of reality, you must instruct him to do such an utterly idiotic thing as to stop eating.

i mean they are truths, but empaths will most often soften these things if they even begin to accept them, and will be hard pressed to utter them (except anonymously, eg 4chan, or when protected by a group that is kind of isolated from society)...

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:02:02 2015 No.6858685

>>6858668
>i mean they are truths, but empaths will most often soften these things if they even begin to accept them
then it might as well be intellectual bravery
plus he's greek so I imagine racism and unfeminism isn't as difficult as it would be for a swede or englishman

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:11:55 2015 No.6858722

Tyson is no better at appreciating other branches of his own precious 'science'

When discussing biology with Dawkins, he constantly denounced the discipline and ended up calling its entire basis into question on the grounds that "Biologists have a sample size of one!" (read: one planet to study).
Well shit, by this logic physicists also have a sample size of one because they've only got one universe to study.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:25:25 2015 No.6858753 >>6856802 Tru

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:35:18 2015 No.6858790

>>6856618
>>6856802
I.A Richards has a book of that title.

There's actually nothing wrong at all with the kind of inquiry he's talking about. He's just too blinded by the habits of his profession, to regard primary conceptual questions as "distractions," to see that whenever he does an experiment, he has tacitly answered all of the questions philosophers work through. There's also tons of stuff philosophers do that isn't even relevant to science whatsoever even if it is logical or ontological in nature. Idealism vs realism has very little bearing, perhaps mostly indirect, on physics. (Physics professors often don't realize they are actually doing some of this philosophical work at high levels.)

His characterization of these questions as "one hand clapping" questions is basically a straw man though. So is his distinction between discussions of ideas and words, which is actually a p shit distinction, as ideas live in words.

Honestly he sounds like he's taken like three undergraduate philosophy courses.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:50:09 2015 No.6858847

>>6856711

He's not wrong.

Up until now he's felt no need for it. Maybe one day he'll look at some Hubble deep space pictures, feel his chest crushed under the weight of existence and buy a Kierkegaard book on a whim. Or realize at 70 that empirical knowledge is not enough for him because his body is hurling itself into the grave as time passes in an uncomputable, metaphysical way.

Or maybe he's already walked down that path and chosen to turn away from it. I guess some people can stop doubting. Either way, I don't think he's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:51:27 2015 No.6858849 >>6857998 Sacrificing everything on the altar of progress.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:52:22 2015 No.6858854

>>6858685
1. Glibness/superficial charm
not sure
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
check
3. Pathological lying
not sure
4. Cunning/manipulative
seems like it
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
check
6. Emotionally shallow
check
7. Callous/lack of empathy
check
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
check
9. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
check
10. Parasitic lifestyle
at least partially
11. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
at least partially (uber game)
12. Impulsivity
check
13. Irresponsibility
not sure
14. Poor behavioral controls
check
15. Early behavioral problems
check
16. Juvenile delinquency
check
17. Revocation of conditional release
not sure
18. Criminal versatility
check
19. Many short-term marital relationships
not sure
20. Promiscuous sexual behavior
not sure

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:55:19 2015 No.6858870

>>6858722
>Well shit, by this logic physicists also have a sample size of one because they've only got one universe to study.
exactly [and this is true, but most physicist do not consider this serious threat, whereas the biologist are more aware of this]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:56:01 2015 No.6858877 File: 526 KB, 570x428, marinetti.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858849 And not even in a cool self-concious way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 12:56:28 2015 No.6858880 >>6856618 >All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. A bit hypocritical, considering how Tyson's efforts were the main driving force behind Pluto's status as a "dwarf planet."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:03:51 2015 No.6858906 >>6858854 >4. Cunning/manipulative >seems like it How? >6. Emotionally shallow What does this mean? >8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions >13. Irresponsibility In what way?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:10:12 2015 No.6858925 >>6858173 Tell us bout how much only math can teach about the REAL, ABSOLUT world

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:14:50 2015 No.6858951 >>6858396 He's very young in that picture.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:17:38 2015 No.6858959

>>6858173
>Science is just a brain teaser, a luxury, for those with too much time on their hands, nothing else. It stems from the fact that we as a pattern-seeking animals can't deal with unknown, unexplained and randomness and therefore have to inject meaning into everything, everything has to have a higher purpose, everything has to be explained, etc. Same as religion really, except science is more consistent.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:21:21 2015 No.6858969

>>6856618
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a bad example of a philosophical question. It's not a traditional philosophical question, it's a Zen koan. A koan is designed to be unanswerable so that it shocks its listener into enlightenment. Another example is "what was your original face before you were born?"—this is obviously nonsensical too, not meant to carry philosophical weight but rather to propose a confounding paradox that restructures the mind.

Ironically, Zen is concerned with reframing reality so many times that true reality arises underneath, so it too is concerned with reality, just in a different way than NdGT.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:21:27 2015 No.6858970

>>6856618
ye he's kinda right; philosophy and metaphysics are fuckin stupid, assuming we're from a viewpoint in which things can be not redundant

I think philosophy is a kind of mentally poisonous quicksand you just get trapped in if you ever bother trying to read it;

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:22:16 2015 No.6858973 >>6857972 That isn't a question. It has the structure of an interrogatory, but can't be answered because it's gobbdly-gook.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:22:21 2015 No.6858974

>>6858906
4.
see the cult of personality he is forming around him and then asking money for access to his forums for example
6.
read his posts and give me an impression of his ability to understand emotion on a personal level... he is low-empathic at least
8, 13
driving through peoples shops and boasting about it, scamming people and brushing it off as a lions and gazelles thing, nothing he ever says or does is wrong, even in retrospect

i like the guy and his work though, looking forward to read more...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 13:24:32 2015 No.6858984 File: 40 KB, 357x400, wittgenstein-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858973 attaboy

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 14:39:04 2015 No.6859275

>>6857888
>One day you'll wake up and realise that meaning isn't necessary and the world around you is nothing more than a chain of cause and effect.

>implying i didn't realize this when i was 13
>implying i didn't negate the eternal void by 14
>implying my life wasn't an un-holy fire of Dionysian frenzy and affirmation by the time i was 15
>implying im not the sacred one

stay nihilist pleb im too busy tearing world history in two

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 14:42:56 2015 No.6859291 >>6856987 The observer paradox and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle come to mind.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 14:58:00 2015 No.6859359 [DELETED]

I used to think NdGT was mostly a dipshit, but he's right about that. Philosophy is retarded at this point and has nothing to offer anyone. I was listening to a lecture on British analytic philosophy since you dudes all say it's less pointless and vague than continental stuff. The lecturer started talking about some problem that went something like this: "the barber of town Whatever, shaves everyone except people people who don't shave themselves, everyone in the town is clean shaven, who shaved barber?!" omg, what a deep and important problem! analytic philosophy is clearly really valuable stuff!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:00:32 2015 No.6859369 >>6858100 These questions would have answers by now if philosophags hadn't spent most of the last century trying to undermine positivist social science.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:00:33 2015 No.6859370

used to think NdGT was mostly a dipshit, but he's right about that. Philosophy is retarded at this point and has nothing to offer anyone. I was listening to a lecture on British analytic philosophy since you dudes all say it's less pointless and vague than continental stuff. The lecturer started talking about some problem that went something like this: "the barber of town Whatever, shaves everyone except people who shave themselves; everyone in the town is clean shaven; then who shaved barber?!" omg, what a deep and important problem! analytic philosophy is clearly really valuable stuff!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:03:02 2015 No.6859381 File: 7 KB, 201x199, idk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6859370

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:03:25 2015 No.6859382 >>6859370 It's proof that you cannot into logic, that's ok most people me included cannot either.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:04:26 2015 No.6859387

>>6859370
Omg I know that feel! One time I looked up some maths to see what the fuss was about; all i found was dumb shit like "If i have 42 cups to share between 12 people and 2 of the people want 5 cups, how many cups are needed?" like lmao what a shit school of thought, give me some real shit ffs

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:08:53 2015 No.6859418 what do scientists do again? Weigh rocks or something?

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:09:07 2015 No.6859420
File: 132 KB, 700x490, 6a00d83451b31569e2013489158321970c-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6859382

but it's not "logic" it's just a stupid language paradox and utterly trivial. i'm embarrassed for the british that one of their rockstar philosophers would even waste time on such stupid bullshit. it's like puzzling over one of those MC Escher drawings where the stairs are laid out in a square but each flight of stairs goes up to the next one. It's not a deep philosophical problem, it's just a neat trick with our tools for describing reality, in the barber case language, in the escher stair case, drawing. neither is significant or important in the slightest.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:10:20 2015 No.6859429 >>6859387 you're not very intelligent are you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:14:53 2015 No.6859455 File: 979 KB, 2314x8185, to perceive, to predict, to know.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] sjark

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:16:07 2015 No.6859467 File: 46 KB, 960x960, 10423844_10153522159986757_6671207645176053512_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6859420 >neither is significant or important in the slightest. significant with respect to what purpose ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:18:47 2015 No.6859478 >>6859429 Okay then tell me one thing logic or math has done for anything aside from stupid fucking mind games

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:23:34 2015 No.6859492 >>6859455 quit posting that autodidactic drivel

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:32:41 2015 No.6859529 >>6858218 Tell me about the problems inherent in the empirical model, I'm severely depressed and wrestling with hard determinism

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:43:10 2015 No.6859562

>>6859467
That image is wrong, if you (metaphorically correct), assume the zyilinder to be the actual truth. Then the images only represent projectins of the truth from certain points of view. The zylinder isn't actually a flat square, it just appears that way, therefor the appearance of a flat square is not the truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:45:32 2015 No.6859571 File: 331 KB, 376x416, Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 8.44.21 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >stop progress But philosophers aren't doing that, scientists and philosophers work separately.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:46:55 2015 No.6859580 >>6859455 What's the source for all this information?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:48:41 2015 No.6859588 >>6859571 And isn't science applied philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:50:41 2015 No.6859598 >>6859455 hey, you posted this in a /pol/ thread about agnosticism this weekend. I remember BTFOing you

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:54:13 2015 No.6859607 >>6859562 You know how truth-functional connectives work, right?

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 15:58:35 2015 No.6859623
File: 110 KB, 840x840, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Earth. Not mounted on a stand, with color-coded state and national boundaries, as schoolroom globes are prone to display. Instead, we see our world as only a cosmic perspective can provide: Blue Oceans — Dry Land — White Clouds — Polar Ice. A Sun-lit planet, teeming with life, framed in darkness …
>Occasions such as this offer renewed confidence that we may ultimately become responsible shepherds of our own fate, and the fate of that fragile home we call Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:08:11 2015 No.6859663 >>6856618 PHILOSOPHY MAJORS BTFO I'm surprised he even addresses philosophy at all. It's like asking for an opinion on new age medicine. But, hey, it's good clickbait.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:12:37 2015 No.6859673 >>6859663 you made me really mad with this post!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:16:32 2015 No.6859678 >>6859663 >It's like asking for an opinion on new age medicine. lmao, philosophy phucks got told, i feel u dude

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:20:28 2015 No.6859687 >>6859455 >as aforementioned Shiggy diggy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:42:43 2015 No.6859752 Lmao the only philosophy relevant today is the philosophy of memes. 1) What is a meme? 2) and what's so American about the meme I'm making?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:48:59 2015 No.6859773 >>6856838 oh please, know he's just trying too hard to fit in with whites, everyone knows blacks guy love fat chicks

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 16:58:11 2015 No.6859810

>>6856618
Baiting because I don't know the value of my time.

>My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?
Because it turns out the study of language is a worthwhile task. How could this be controversial? Good linguistic theory can very well broaden our understanding of human communication and foster technological advancement (e.g. computational semantics, artificial intelligence).

>Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can't move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress.
So mentally masturbating over an ancient koan represents the whole of philosophy? Must philosophy be mystical in some way? And philosophers can't tell nonsense from questions that may lead somewhere? How can that be? This 'scientist' is either butthurt or stupid/ignorant. He has the nerve to dismiss a legitimate academic discipline by spouting fallacies.

>How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas.
So a (suposedly scientific) discussion about ideas doesn't entail clarifying the meaning of the corresponding terms, since those meanings are automatically clear or irrelevant. Don't scientific theories do exactly the opposite, though?

>And when you do that don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind. You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that.
Science black man is conveniently avoiding the controversies in interpreting a big deal of physical and biological theory (for instance), which is an actual task undertaken by scientists, who often posit (you guessed it) philosophical views to try and solve these issues. E.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/..

My diagnosis is butthurt from equating philosophy to (an archaic impression of) metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:06:29 2015 No.6859847 File: 371 KB, 500x375, 1435241827322.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Science allows us to come to conclusions with what is presently known. Philosophy helps us establish what is present known.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:09:32 2015 No.6859871 >>6859847 Nice aphorism, shitlord. Peanuts is stupid, btw.

Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:31:30 2015 No.6859974

Philosophers certainly don't think 'everything has to have a higher purpose' or that everything HAS to be explained'. Rather they just want to see how far we can push our understanding of the world.

It's as if you have never actually read a serious work of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:35:02 2015 No.6859986 >>6858374 >just a concept ..., a priori well there ya go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:39:25 2015 No.6860001 File: 850 KB, 959x959, 1436664673071.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6858485 get a load of this goy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 17:50:33 2015 No.6860074 >>6859420 It's an unanswerable question, much the same as the one posed in the OP, but I'm guessing the point of it may have something to do with the nature of naive logic systems and Russell's paradox.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 21:15:00 2015 No.6860905 He clearly knows shit about philosophy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 21:18:48 2015 No.6860923 maybe we wouldn't have to keep concerning ourselves with the definition of words if people like YOU DIDN'T KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 21:22:16 2015 No.6860939 so concerned with the natural world not seeing the human hearts yes

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 21:23:43 2015 No.6860945 >>6859847 Nice picture. I love Charlie Brown.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 21 21:30:06 2015 No.6860984 File: 26 KB, 130x229, tired.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6856618 >black science man >having opinions about anything

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 06:31:03 2015 No.6862515 >>6856724 /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 06:55:07 2015 No.6862578 >>6858444 as if that neccesarily discredits anything in the post itself

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 07:27:56 2015 No.6862705 Philosophy is pointless trash.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 07:29:21 2015 No.6862716 Niggers can't think

Anonymous Wed Jul 22 07:41:40 2015 No.6862758

>>6856618
>My concern here is that the scientists believe they are actually studying important things about nature. And to the philosophers it's, what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with such small things?

>Yeah, if you are distracted by your studies so that you can't think forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the philosopher knows when the question "how many times does a guatemalan slug ejaculates every day?" is a pointless delay in our understanding of reality.

see? I can be a picky bitch too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 08:06:23 2015 No.6862852 >>6856770 if you talk about physics long enough you will eventually start to discuss philosophy. Physics does not exists without philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Jul 22 08:11:43 2015 No.6862868

>>6856618
>What was before universe?
>What is time and how do we experience it?
>What is consciousness and can a machine have it?

What an actual scientist would say
>Dunno, let's find out with science!
What black science guy says
>Lol go back to wonder bout' clapping, I have to blindly progress towards...something...cause...uh...YEAH IT'S SCIENCE LMAO

Anonymous Wed Jul 22 08:53:47 2015 No.6862950

>things philosophy has achieved
Discovered atoms.
Discovered gravity.
Created the logic behind computer science.
Offered new ways of criticism to nearly every field including literary, musical, dietary, political, religious, ect.

>things Neil DeGrasse Tyson has achieved
Ooga booga rock stomp
Make a shitty sequel to Cosmos with the guy who made Family Guy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 09:43:05 2015 No.6863072 >>6862852 Except because physics assumes from the get-go a division of the world in object and subject it doesn't accept any attempt to look at the world differently, thus eliminating a lot of perspectives that are legitimate in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 09:49:09 2015 No.6863092 >>6862950 >Discovered gravity One would assume gravity was discovered when the first man realized he didn't float off the ground but ok... >Created the logic... What!?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 10:33:49 2015 No.6863212 File: 10 KB, 242x208, 1423429017642.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6856618

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 22 12:30:07 2015 No.6863531 File: 204 KB, 616x636, 1431119863623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6856618

Anonymous Wed Jul 22 16:35:28 2015 No.6864422

>>6856987

>Gottfried Wilhelm von Liebniz was a philosopher and mathematician in search of a model. In the late 1600s Leibniz decided there was a need for a new, purer arithmetic than our common decimal system. Leibniz discovered the model for this new arithmetic in the five-millennia-old book that is at the heart of Chinese philosophy: the I-Ching, or Book of Changes.

>This ancient text was such an influence on Liebniz that he titled his article on the new arithmetic: "Explanation of the binary arithmetic, which uses only the characters 1 and 0, with some remarks on its usefulness, and on the light it throws on the ancient Chinese figures of Fu Xi". Fu Xi was the legendary first author of the I-Ching. The arithmetic Liebniz described was binary code, which is used in almost every modern computer, from iPhones to China's own Tihane-2 supercomputer.

The I Jing is fundamental to modern mathematics and computational theory. Even NDT cannot dispute this.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature