/lit/ - Literature

>>4477805
Where do you deliver on the " 'so what' moment"?

>>4477833
I don't. For the deep nihilists there is nothing worth living for.

>>4477805
So when can we expect the bomb?
And are you going to follow it up wit a shooting?

>>4477851
Haha. I know the word "manifesto" bears associations to Marx and suicidal, young, white men. But glance over it and you'll see that I'm happy.

>>4477844
Fine, but I still don't understand what the manifesto is 'about'. (I've only glanced about 5 paragraphs of it.)

I can't believe I wasted my time reading this tripe.

>>4477887
Why is it tripe? :)

>>4477889
I write about the six ideas I consider essential. You could give it a read? :)

>I want to end now, with an excerpt from Sam Harris, who says it better than I can:
lol yeah nah

>>4477896
Oh, it's a libertarian manifesto; I should have guessed from: >>4477844

>>4477906
It's not really a libertarian manifesto. I am mainly for capitalism on utilitarian grounds and secondarily on ontological grounds.

>>4477906
did you ever get around to the hume reading? i was the op of the thread

>>4477904
Don't you like Harris? Why?

>>4477917
because hes a charlatan

>50% of the manifesto is quotes

>>4477916
I have read Hume yes. I was partly inspired by him in writing about LOVE, where I talk about morality as motivated by emotions (which is a scientific position also, not just a philosophical).

>>4477923
I seriously would encourage you to revisit Harris. He is very conservative about making knowledge-claims.

>>4477924
Because I wanted to show that these are thought shared by others through history. Is it not good or?

>>4477916
Yes I read all of it but then the group disappeared.

>>4477926
i was asking girljesus

>>4477949
i deleted it because /lit/ was too lazy to participate. how did you find the enquiry? any critiques or things you enjoyed?

>>4477952
Oh okay, haha

Why are all these 9 - 5 normies obsessed with science above all else?

>>4477929
selecting quotes because they are topical does not mean those people shared the same sentiments.

>>4477955
A lot of the time I felt that his constant deference to religious logic was interrupting the soundness of his reasoning, but then I kept catching hints at a kind of more 'existentialist' basis for that's usage, as in the pic (which quote I love), and I found that that made his positions more respectable, even if not exactly more accurate. I don't know, it was all fairly elementary stuff; I was eager to do more.

>>4477984
Fuck; wrong quote. Try now.

>>4477980
I can't really speak for others, but I like and support science because it has meant that humanity understand something, instead of being confused about reality like we have been for 5000 years.

>>4477984
lel

>>4477988
Or now, fucking tablet.

>>4477982
No. But if you read for example Thoreau's Walden or Enstein's Ideas and Opinions you'll see that we share sentiments ON THE IDEA OF THE QUOTE

>>4477986
>humanity understand something
try again, senpai.

>>4477993
Sorry, I'm from Denmark. But do you agree with my reasoning?

>Science is humanity's best attempt at knowing something

read more

>>4477984
yeah thats a nice sort of slippery slope from occasionalism. in regards to his religious tangents, the reason being is due to him being situated in an epoch where religion was gratuitous, and it seems that one of his main agendas of skepticism was to limit the certainty of religious claims.

> I don't know, it was all fairly elementary stuff; I was eager to do more.
i can re-add you back to skype if you'd like to read and discuss another hume work. I was thinking perhaps book 2 of the treatise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature#Book_2:_Of_the_Passions

>>4477998
You must make the case for why I am wrong

>>4477844
>For the deep nihilists there is nothing worth
what a load of bullshit, being a nihilist has nothing to do with worth or lack thereof

looks like you haven't been reading shit, you dense poseur

>>4477999
nevermind i just realised the enquiry is essentially a summary of the treatise

>>4478004
Nihilism (/ˈnaJ.ɨlJzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlJzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

- Just a Google search away

>>4478001

It is true only under the naive construal that only gives ontological status to the propositions of science. It excludes essential areas of discourse like mathematics which is metaphysics or philosophy of science or ethics without which we'd all be getting culturally enriched like Sweden.

>>4477999
>i can re-add you back to skype
That'd be cool. How many are still there?

>>4478014
To say anything you must assume something. Every system can ultimately be refined to some principles, which have no basis. Science is useful, unlike philosophy, and mathematics is the language of science, it's a formal science.

With regards to Sweden, I live right on the other side of Oresund in Denmark. They are getting culturally enriched because the Swedish state steals money from Swedes and gives it by immigrants. Not something I would support.

>>4478012

There are no self proclaimed nihilists. It's a term that enters into philosophy as a "coming storm" describing the culture under the aimless and hedonistic rule of the mass following the desertion of traditional forms of authority and value.

>>4478021
You're a conservative of traditionalist? Tell me about your position if you'd like?

I had to stop at the capitalism part. Good for you for "accomplishing" something and sharing your message, though.
/lithugbox

>>4478027
Not pro-capitalism yourself? Why not read it and then rip my reasoning apart? haha :)

I've always found that so much reliance on quotes make you seem as a /lit/erary Shia Labeouf

>>4478043
Haha. But I've written the message first in my own words, then reinforced it with quotes

>>4478020

I'd say you are entering into thinking with the wrong approach. The method in which one inclines to doubt everything which cannot be proven is implicit in your statement. It leads one to take arbitrary starting points and then to latch onto these assumptions uncritically for fear of being paralyzed by doubt. Notice that the assumptions themselves cannot be evaluated as true or false and that essential discourses, in your case, are excluded from the domain of provability. To solve this problem one should enter into thinking in a wholly different manner. I prefer the manner of Aristotle. His philosophy begins by examining the everyday opinions and observations, working out the contradictions in motion toward both more general and more specific knowledge. The method doesn't make any explicit assumptions, but analyzes them out of more accessible propositions. It leaves all theories about the world open to criticism and even cold allow for multiple interpretations of the world as we know it. It allows for a meaningful ethics and aesthetics, because value is something we intuit in the world; and for a natural science, because the world is accessible to our senses. You don't have the apparatus to say that science is more correct or better than other methods of examination, but Aristotle does and Aristotelians can meaningfully argue the point without contradiction.

>>4478024

I'm not either, I'm very much in the moment but I look to the past for wisdom. The criticisms of modernity are compelling and drive one to examine pre-modern forms as guides.

>>4477805
Ok, without having read it, the quotes, dude.. The quotes.. Stop.

>>4478065
The starting point of science is evidence, observations, measurements. The "manner of Aristotle" is alike that of science, except good science disregards opinions. Science is exactly a way of thinking which leaves all theories open to criticism, but at the same time requires evidence. The problem with retreating into your mind when observations do not match your preferences was sometimes apparent in Aristotle (he held wrong beliefs like teleology or natural motion). He was much better than Plato though.

>>4478069
The point of the quotes is to show how historical thinkers shared my viewpoints and how they articulated them. Why is it bad?

It seems like you are creating your personal belief system or updating your current or whatever. I highly recommend that you read Maps of Meaning by professor Jordan Peterson. (I have to warn you though that it will drastically change your perspective on just about everything)

>>4478114
I will definitely check it out :)

>>4478021
>There are no self proclaimed nihilists
This simply isn't a fact. The rebuttal that 'anyone who calls themself a nihilist is an idiot and doesn't know what they're talking about' is, for what should be obvious reasons, no rebuttal at all. There are nihilists, even self-proclaimed ones, and some of them are even solid reasoners.

>>4478093
It's cringeworthy... appeal to authority in 2014...

>>4478114
>Warning: This Book Will Change Your Life!
the point is i'm skeptical

>>4478130
I agree. But in the end nihilism is not a difficult position to take - just tear everything down, ask them how they know that with certainty and so on. Nihilism requires little of you as a thinker, because anyone with a little brain can destroy an idea, it's more difficult to build ideas.

I would guess, judging from my personal experience and listening to my friends who read, that nihilism is the position you take when you reach 16, because it allows you to feel superior to others - "they don't know that all their ideas are ultimately bullshit".

>>4478131
The point is that they articulate the ideas better than me, not that they are famous - I have purposefully tried to eliminate all logical fallacies - if you find any, let me know!

>>4478089

The starting point of the modern natural science for most is found in ridiculous ontological and epistemic assumptions that cannot account for the existence or truth of themselves. You yourself state that such an assumption is necessary.

Aristotle never retreats into the mind. His eye is always on the world and his theories are always grounded in "empirical reality". The modern science as it is practiced (and not theorized about) remains entirely Aristotelian. The publication and peer review standards are means to both record observations publicly and work out contradictions implied by theories, new and old. Like it or not the body of the natural science approaches truth, but never truly rises above the character of a justified opinion about the way things work.

Teleology was rejected as one of the founding assumptions of the natural science based on faulty grounds and misreadings. Firstly, we have to consider that Aristotle argues not for their otherworldly necessity, but for the utility in providing complete explanation. For Aristotle final and formal causes were coincident for all but living things and that distinction is what segregates the living from the non-living.* This is largely still exercised in practice. The study of biology is laden with teleological explanations, the heart exists to pump blood, the lungs exist to oxygenate blood, etc. Aristotle was much more down to earth and in tune with the way we approach the world than we are.

As for the flaws of his physics, you might as well claim Copernicus is worthless because his solar system model was wrong. Aristotle welcome criticism, it's essential to his methods.

*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCauSciNat

>>4478130

A reasoner who reasons for no reason is not a solid reasoner.

>>4478146
This assumes that the nihilist is unexposed to intelligent criticism. One very important thing to understand about nihilism is the full implications of what it means to have no belief: take things people believe in; the rule of non-contradiction, A is A, two twos are four and so on. The nihilist is without these beliefs; this means a nihilist can, without any shred of cognitive dissonace 'do something for a reason' (to acknowledge >>4478164) while still being bereft of reasons; as that law of non-contradiction has lost its application. But of course the nihilist is still a physical person; they cannot perform magic, so they may still develop 'expectations', and in that sense experience, and by that draw inferences and contribute to arguments. This I think refutes the Aristotelian idea that if one does not believe then they have no power to argue against logic, as they must do so through the medium of logic; because contradiction, and thus creation, however 'ex nihilo', is all the same allowed for.

>>4478185
*believe in logic

>>4478185

And this is why we disregard nihilists.

>>4478192
Do elaborate.

>>4478153

> The starting point of the modern natural science for most is found in ridiculous ontological and epistemic assumptions that cannot account for the existence or truth of themselves. You yourself state that such an assumption is necessary.

Why are the assumptions ridiculous? I assume you refer to such assumptions as "models of reality with predictive capability good" or "evidence should be valued".

> Aristotle never retreats into the mind

Although not as bad as Plato, he still did. But who's to blame him, there weren't a lot of knowledge around back then.

> His eye is always on the world and his theories are always grounded in "empirical reality".

To some degree yes. But many of the Aristotelian propositions about the world break down in the face of new evidence, gathered with technology which extends our senses - like the telescope, microscope or infrared camera.

> The modern science as it is practiced (and not theorized about) remains entirely Aristotelian

Maybe in a basic philosophical sense, but nearly all Aristotle's science has been replaced.

> Like it or not the body of the natural science approaches truth, but never truly rises above the character of a justified opinion about the way things work.

Yes, precisely. This is what I write about under SCIENCE in the manifesto.

> Teleology was rejected as one of the founding assumptions of the natural science based on faulty grounds and misreadings. Firstly, we have to consider that Aristotle argues not for their otherworldly necessity, but for the utility in providing complete explanation. For Aristotle final and formal causes were coincident for all but living things and that distinction is what segregates the living from the non-living.* This is largely still exercised in practice. The study of biology is laden with teleological explanations, the heart exists to pump blood, the lungs exist to oxygenate blood, etc. Aristotle was much more down to earth and in tune with the way we approach the world than we are.

Teleology is rejected by science today - but remains in our language.

> As for the flaws of his physics, you might as well claim Copernicus is worthless because his solar system model was wrong. Aristotle welcome criticism, it's essential to his methods.

What I claim is that most of Aristotle's as well as Copernicus's science, does not agree with observed evidence. Copernicus was a step forward, but his model should be rejected.

>>4477805
That was the most naïve case for capitalism possible. You have not engaged with any serious criticism of it whatsoever. The typical produce of someone living safely in an affluent part of a Western nation.

>>4478208
Okay

But why am I wrong? What is your critique?

Also, I had limited space, which means not enough room to debunk Marx's claims, fro example.

>>4478153
>his theories are always grounded in "empirical reality"
Stopped reading here. Superficial knowledge of Aristotle at best.

>>4478194

Because they do away with any standards of communication. One is simply not intelligible if he ignores the law of non-contradiction.

>>4478197
>Why are the assumptions ridiculous? I assume you refer to such assumptions as "models of reality with predictive capability good" or "evidence should be valued".

The method in which one inclines to doubt everything which cannot be proven is implicit in your statement. It leads one to take arbitrary starting points and then to latch onto these assumptions uncritically for fear of being paralyzed by doubt. Notice that the assumptions themselves cannot be evaluated as true or false and that essential discourses, in your case, are excluded from the domain of provability. You don't have the apparatus to say that science is more correct or better than other methods of examination, but Aristotle does and Aristotelians can meaningfully argue the point without contradiction.

>Although not as bad as Plato, he still did. But who's to blame him, there weren't a lot of knowledge around back then.

[citation needed]

>To some degree yes. But many of the Aristotelian propositions about the world break down in the face of new evidence, gathered with technology which extends our senses - like the telescope, microscope or infrared camera.
>Maybe in a basic philosophical sense, but nearly all Aristotle's science has been replaced.
>What I claim is that most of Aristotle's as well as Copernicus's science, does not agree with observed evidence. Copernicus was a step forward, but his model should be rejected.

He wrote 2300 years ago. To put that in context, he is the founder of biology. Generally it is understood that there were no serious non-medically oriented biological thinkers before him. Of course his physical theories are largely incorrect in light of later evidence. He would invite the presentation and discussion of this evidence.

>Yes, precisely. This is what I write about under SCIENCE in the manifesto.

Aristotle agrees, my point is that the scientific method is Aristotelian in practice. It differs only in the dogmatism which often provides the foundations. Aristotle builds his metaphysics as a means to greater understand "empirical reality", so in essence science needs no dogmatic foundations in his view. This is superior as it avoids the problem associated with the unprovability of axioms.

>Teleology is rejected by science today - but remains in our language.

It is rejected by science on ridiculous theoretical grounds that aren't even based on a sound analysis of final causes. Bacon responds largely to Aquinian interpretations of Aristotle and not Aristotle as himself.

>>4477929
You are taking the words of other people out of their original context and using them to decorate your own writing without directly addressing them. If you take the quotes out, your argument doesn't lose anything because they are just fluff. It's not hard to see why some people might consider this bad style.

>>4478223

[disputed]

>>4478236
No, I think you misunderstand: he is capable of obedience to the law of non-contradiction because he has ignored it. He becomes intelligible.

>>4478243
I see your point. I don't believe I have misrepresented the original meaning behind the quotes. - maybe it depends on what reader you are, some might like it.

>>4478236

> One is simply not intelligible if he ignores the law of non-contradiction.

This is most likely true. However, it is not an argument for the correctness of A is A.

Take quantum mechanics, which makes wildly intelligible propositions, such as: "a particle can be both everywhere and nowhere at the same time".

Now, should we value the philosophy of Aristotle or the most scientifically tested theory in history?

>I will aim
This could be shortened to "I aim".
>Science is humanity's best attempt at knowing something
This sounds really silly. I suggest "Science is humanity's best attempt at knowledge". Not that much better of a phrasing, but I like it better than your current one.
>I do not
"I don't".
> because a future observation might call for something in our current scientific models of reality to be changed.
I'd just say "as the facts of our world are in a state of constant change because of science."

>>4478286
The first three I agree with
Thanks!

The last one is worded in such because it fits into the language game I play throughout the book.

>>4478275
>Take quantum mechanics, which makes wildly intelligible propositions, such as: "a particle can be both everywhere and nowhere at the same time".

It's a category error. In QM particles are expressed as localized probability waves. Particles are waves and waves can be described mathematically, they are the fundamental stuff, so to speak. Corpuscular interaction is shorthand for localized wave interaction.

>>4478313
Look into Hawkings writings on the Copenhagen interpretation and the double-slit buckyball experiments.

His point is that there is no underlying reality beyond the models we make in science, and although this may be uncomfortable, I see little room for escape. QM is about probability, but there is no definite reality underlying that probability.

>>4478248

He pretends to be intelligible.

>>4478338
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>4478338

Why would I care about what Hawking has to say over any other physicist? It remains that in quantum mechanics the most basic thing we can talk about are wave interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Treatment_in_modern_quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

>>4478353
Look into model-dependant realism

>>4478357
Why not read Hawkings? Look man, I'm not disagreeing that QM is about particles as waves

>>4477805
>This is a way of ruling out unhealthy or superstitious ideas (like socialism

Stopped reading there.

>>4478388
Okay.

Do you believe socialism is feasible? Why?

>>4478392
Tell me why it isn't and I'll reply.

>>4478012
what a load of bullshit, there is no such thing as philosphical "doctrine" and neither is there Nihilism fullstop you dense motherfucker

google searches is where your knowledge comes from? read a book you dirty pleb

>>4478395

Okay

Socialism means state ownership of the means of production

> but wait, that's not my kind of socialism.

Okay, then tell me what your kind implies. Is it common ownership, more like communism - or workers union control, or what it is?

The kind socialism where the state controls the means of production is the kind I believe all attempts at "social" control inevitably leads to.

Socialism fails because:

a) It has no price mechanism, which means it must rely on some sort of inefficient democratic, bureaucratic way of allocating resources.

b) Socialism assumes socialistic people. It does not account for crime, corruption, abuse and so on, but assumes various kinds of different changes to human nature.

c) Every attempt at implementing socialism has lead to mass death, violence and inevitably collapse.

d) Marx's predictions failed; The workers pay went up instead of down from 1860 to now. The living standard rose for everyone in the partly capitalist countries the west has today. Average real wages went up.

e) Any economist will tell you that socialism results in less GDP growth. Many of them then finds that lessened growth desirable for some purpose, but the facts remain.

>>4478399
Why so mad haha?

I have read many books, both A song of ice and fire and the hobbit

>I want to end now, with an excerpt from Sam Harris
You blew it.

All credibility lost.

In the trash it belongs.

>>4478484
Haha, well - hat did you think of the rest?

And why do you dislike Harris?

>>4477911
>I am mainly for capitalism on utilitarian grounds and secondarily on ontological grounds.
Have you read anything that isn't pro-capitalist?

>>4478493
I have read Marx and Stalin, but that's not much of a challenge.

I have also read critiques from supporters of Scandinavian socialism

I have read critiques from various bleeding heart libertarians (pro market, pro welfare)

I've read Adam Smiths anti-capitalist critique

what else....

I've read theory on the optimal distribution of wealth in order to maximize marginal utility, from an american liberal

I've read Krugman and Harvey

>>4478493
If you read my manifesto i write about how exposing yourself to other viewpoints and honestly reviewing them is healthy

Another day, another garbage thread on /lit/

>>4478520

Why is it garbage?

It's not really useful, if you don't provide critique

>>4478485
His sophomoric arguments and his writing style that screams of blogging-material at best.

>>4478510
>I have read Marx and Stalin, but that's not much of a challenge.
We're done here.

>>4478549
I think maybe you're reading it as sophomoric, while I read it as simple and elegant?

Also, Harris is not blogging-tier, come one haha.

>>4478565
Why do you believe their ideas pose a challenge?