/lit/ - Literature

>>18716368
>No desire to see other perspectives
Yet you are saying that as a 'spoiled Westerner' I can never understand, despite the fact that I've directly addressed this feeble non-argument.

Also you are the one advocating a dogmatic religion, not me.

I didn't say you liked the torture, I charged you with endorsing it. Since we are giving in to our prejudices let me say that you come across as a typical midwit Christ cuck, self righteous, cognitively limited, and smugly selective in your replies. 300 posts and not a single one of you happy clappers answered the Ivan Karamazov question directly, despite the fact that myself and others repeatedly phrased and re-phrased it to you. Your clumsy assumptions about your opponents, which form the entirety of your contribution to the discussion, are also clear evidence that your mind paints in brushstrokes too broad for real philosophy. You can't make the big arguments if you repeatedly fail to understand the question. Words like 'strawmanning' therefore have no meaning when you use them. Your reading comprehension or your personal integrity just aren't up to the job of defending your hideous 'faith'

>>18127742
cont.

>science can't be defined by the method because it exists within a zeitgeist.
Yes I think this connects to what I've been saying about scientific practice as an imperfect attempt at instantiating the method. A lot of other factors come into play. A great deal of interpretation etc. And to that extent science can be coopted and warped. I don't deny any of that. The reason why science can continue to be defined by the method is that the method has a strict and self-evident internal character without factoring in context or intent. It is a simple and fully abstract recipe for increasing object knowledge, albeit inferientially.

You are right to point out that intention is involved/implied, even in a simple statement of the scientific method, since there is an aim (object truth) that is being sought. But that basic level of intention would be present in any scientific discovery, it would remain valid and functional even though it was present alongside a lot of other intentions that were invalid and context dependant. The scientific method exists in a zeitgeist but can still be separated and defined in a sufficient form - the quest for object knowledge based on defeasible theories mounted on repeatable observations of physical phenomenon.
Science is nearly always being done imperfectly just as its conclusions are nearly always imperfect, but the recipe is definable, neccessary and sufficient. That is why you can be a scientist (and your work can be called science) even if your conclusions/models about the physical world are very wrong, and even if you exist in a place on the timeline which encourages you to partake in some level of contextually driven distraction from the pure scientific method.


>TLDR for above:
Science is different from Evil and historical, disproven scientists can still be called scientists precisely because it is easy to describe what is neccessary and sufficient for Science to exist. When you do away with intention-based theories of Evil, then what can be said about Science can NO LONGER be said about Evil.

What is Evil if not intentional harming of innocents? Take intent away from Evil and what is left over? Forbidden acts? The forbiddeness of harm itself? Of Wrath?

As far as I can see there is nothing universally/consistently loathsome about Evil other than its minimal intention-based form as I have described it. To say that it has a substance all of its own would rely on some outside entity, like a God. You may want to furnish that kind of a proof but its not really my bag.

Wtf moments in the Bible like when some children teased Elisha for being bald, so God cursed them with a bear attack.