/lit/ - Literature

Fuck allya'll; I ain't never gonna read this slickback nosferatu

>>10569159
>I think you know full well what we're talking about.
I'm not engaging in semantics, btw. I'm just talking about the way society is currently structured, as opposed to the way it maybe ought to be structured. I am not some Theist brainlet trying to refute "scientism" or anything, just a person pointing out that the performance of science is dependent upon a politically welcoming environment, which is both difficult to form and maintain, and cannot be formed and maintained through analytical philsophy alone. As long as people play power games it doesn't matter who is logically right. There has to be dickheads willing to make ideological power plays independent of scientific thought in order to even create a society/environment where science can be funded and scientists can be trained. Science does not happen in a vacuum is all I am saying. I am pointing out that science has not yet accumulated enough political power, and the general population is not yet scientifically literate enough that for science to be the sole way we make important decisions, EVEN IF THAT SHOULD BE THE CASE.

>In science, we observe, measure, analyse, and predict.
Correct.
>In philosophy, we sit in a room and theorise.
A rhetorical oversimplification.
Science is a philosophy.
Some people sat down in a room and theorized that we ought to arrive at our conclusions only once we have "observed, measured, analysed, and predicted." Incidentally those people were logically correct, however reality imposes upon us time constraints, political threats, disease, bad weather, and innumerable other variables that actually make it difficult to perform science in a timely fashion. Science does not say what we should do or when, it only says how we ought to arrive at material truths. Science can discover a piece of information not previously known, but what the economic and political elites who funded the science decide to do with that information is wholly independent of the scientific process itself. Science is an EMPIRICAL PHILSOPHY which means it only decides HOW we gather knowledge, not WHY. WHY is still an incredibly important question that drives everything. Like "Why bother doing science at all?" Why is the ideological fuel that drives human behavior. The answer is obviously to educate ourselves about the surrounding world and increase our standard of living, but people do not arrive at the idea that this is a good or useful thing to do without some heavy philosophical imprinting that is independent of the scientific method. For this you need economic hierarchies, systems of pedagogy, and a source of revenue to make it keep working. The fact that I receive so much resistance to this simple idea astounds me.

>>10340275

>>9479849
Funny. He was trying to be pleb/casual with that one, and as such it's the only one he's written so far that's been made into a film

Mason & Dixon, Against The Day, Gravity's Rainbow are my favorite books of his, and are entirely different beasts from his short works.

current political state then work your way backwards

>>9411730
No.

>>9250152

Post rare Daves.

>>9065010

>>8588326

>>7908937
>>7908888

>>7029806
probably just talking about the people in this pic

>>6925522

>>6811271
when ur whole squad on point

Note New Balance

>>6797990
Squad goals

>>6771814

I want to read some Franzen, do I start with Freedom or The Corrections?

>>6750721

here's the anglo version of #1 OP

From where do you get inspiration for writing? no matter what i always end doing depressing shit.

>>6505636
beats me.

Reccomend me some dank PoMo scifi novel, /lit/