/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15308551]

Is the study of metaphysics just an ultra-long example of the sunk cost fallacy?

[Anonymous No.15308559]

>>15308551
only with w*stern """"metaphysics"""

[Anonymous No.15308580]

>>15308559
t. white buddhist

[Anonymous No.15308586]

>>15308551
fucking cunt
what a shallow reading of wittgenstein
I will force him to understand

[Anonymous No.15308589]

>>15308551
Nope.

/thread

[Anonymous No.15308593]

>>15308551
Wittgenstein and Derrida are both just whiny and stupid Jews. Metaphysics is not a waste of time. Derrida and Wittgenstein are worse than naive realists.

[Anonymous No.15308601]

Not at all. If the study of metaphysics is indeed the study of everything, or to be more precise the study of the proper definition of everything, would not the entire understanding (and presumed revelation) of a sunken cost be enveloped in the answer?

I mean it could all be one long "the real monads were the friends we made along the way" in the end, but I wouldn't call that a sunk cost, we still got the journey.

[Anonymous No.15308603]

>>15308580
DELET

[Anonymous No.15308604]

>>15308551
"Everything is cat hair."
-Wine Aunts, 2020

[Anonymous No.15308610]

>>15308586
Yeah philosophy comics really took a downward turn at some point. Became dismissive and facile with a tinge of reactionary Marxism. Pretty unfortunate, they had some funny stuff earlier.

[Anonymous No.15308627]

>>15308593
>I've never actually read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.15308628]

Everything is energy?

[Anonymous No.15308631]

Are these comics supposed to be funny? Every comic I've seen from this guy looks like it's going to have a punchline then there's no payoff. It's mostly "Ah I get that reference!"

[Anonymous No.15308639]

I don't entirely understand why you would head down this road of speculation when you could instead do science.

[Anonymous No.15308644]

>>15308631
The punchline is all the idiots feeling intellectually superior for getting the reference.

[Anonymous No.15308653]

>>15308639
The study of metaphysics is (should be) a part of the study of science.

[Anonymous No.15308664]

>>15308580
Buddhist metaphysics are even more retarded then western metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15308679]

>>15308653
Cope

[Anonymous No.15308698]

>>15308551
Everything is spacetime.

[unironically No.15308715]

Everything is memes

[Anonymous No.15308720]

>>15308604
Based

[Anonymous No.15308732]

Is there a philosopher who thinks everything is interpretation (not in some post- structuralist way)? The only one that comes to mind is Walter Benjamin

[Anonymous No.15308749]

>>15308732
Isn't that sort of like William James? It depends on what you mean by "everything is interpretation."

[Anonymous No.15308751]

>>15308639
Metaphysics is a part of science.

[Anonymous No.15308788]

>>15308551
Wittgenstein didn't say that metaphysics was dumb or a waste of time, he said that metaphysics is confused by language. If anyone were actually enterprising, they would create a metaphysics that was less susceptible to confusion.

Also having metaphysics is key to the other branches of philosophy

[Anonymous No.15308804]

>>15308751
t. not a scientist

[Anonymous No.15308837]

>>15308732
this is basically the gist of hermeneutic phenomenology, so you'd be looking at gadamer and ricoeur

[Anonymous No.15308864]

>>15308751
Hint: there's a reason why there's "physics" and "meta-physics." They're not the same

[Anonymous No.15308874]

>>15308679
Science studies the physical world. Philosophy studies science, and metaphysics is a necessary subject when you have to study what's the relation between science and the physical world.

[Anonymous No.15308894]

>>15308551
Yes, metaphysics AND physics.

[Anonymous No.15308941]

>>15308864
Never said they were, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15308962]

everything is will

[Anonymous No.15309007]

>>15308551
Based Spinoza

[Anonymous No.15309163]

>>15308551
None of them are particularly wrong except for Thales though

[Anonymous No.15309179]

>>15309163
now I want him to be right

[Anonymous No.15309192]

>>15308551
the absence of aristotle suggests the author's understanding of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15309198]

>>15309163
If he had known about elements he could have said Hydrogen instead of H2O and he would have been arguably right

[Anonymous No.15309202]

What? How the fuck is "everything noumena" for Kant?

[Anonymous No.15309214]

>>15309202
How is it not?

[Anonymous No.15309223]

>>15309214
Kant's whole critical project can be summarized as "things are NOT noumena", that's the whole copernican turn man. The world as appearances not as things-in-themselves, noumena is Kant's funny little word for "thing-in-itself".

[Anonymous No.15309225]

>>15308639
Science is speculation, building phenomenological models can not ever find truth.

[Anonymous No.15309233]

>>15309225
Totally backwards

[Anonymous No.15309241]

>>15309198
Many things are definitely not hydrogen

[Anonymous No.15309242]

>>15309233
Except it's not. Models of phenomena can never be considered actual truth.

[Anonymous No.15309248]

>>15308874
>Philosophy studies science
lol no it doesn’t

[Anonymous No.15309257]

>>15308628
>>15308639
Because metaphysics can accomplish in 1 book what Science needs hundreds? Modern science is only now coming to the realization that Kant is absolutely right.

[Anonymous No.15309258]

>>15309242
Models of phenomena are the only actual truths. Everything else is speculation

[Anonymous No.15309262]

now do wittgenstein, 1953

[Anonymous No.15309263]

>>15309257
People have always known Kant is right.
I honestly don't know a single person in academia who knows what Kant was saying who still doesn't agree with him.

[Anonymous No.15309273]

>>15309258
No, your phenomena are not true, they are only representations in your mind.

[Anonymous No.15309281]

>>15308551
Everything is Everything.

Me, 2020 AD

[Anonymous No.15309284]

>>15309241
They are all sons of hydrogen though. It was Hydrogen what formed the rest of elements after extended gravity compression, which is what we call a star.
Even today pure Hydrogen is still 75%+ of the universe.

[Anonymous No.15309285]

>>15309257
Every scientist knows Kant was right lol. The reason scientists have so many books is because they’re busy learning things instead of expounding on trivial insights

[Anonymous No.15309292]

>>15309248
Oh yeah, let’s forget that Popperian falsification is now taught in every single methods class. Also, let’s ignore that concepts like ecteenal validation and parsimoniousness were introduced to Science by philosophers. Also, in the meatine let’s forget concepts such as pseudoscience, and paradigm shifts are philosophic concepts.

[Anonymous No.15309295]

>>15309273
Speculation.

[Anonymous No.15309303]

>>15309223
I haven't read Kant directly yet so correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand is that he differentiates Noumena from Phenomena, and while we can only access phenomena or world-as-appearances, I don't see how that negates a Noumena.

[Anonymous No.15309308]

>>15308551
Dismissing metaphysics is the ultimate cope. Heck Kant even says in the critique how natural philosophers think they have done away with metaphysics but still make metaphysical assumptions.

>Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized

[Anonymous No.15309323]

>>15309303
Because Noumena is like a catch-all term. It means “whatever is causing these phenomenons we have”. We have zero notion of what it is and have no way to know if they even exist. It could be God, it coukd psychedlics, it could nothing. The end result is the same, it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.15309325]

>>15309303
Noumena is just a placeholder term. It's just for negative use in Kant's view. We can't possibly know anything about noumena so they functionally don't exist for us.

[Anonymous No.15309333]

>>15309295
You are the one speculating. I am just accepting the fact that all the knowledge that we have came from sensory data and are therefore representations in our minds.
"The laws of nature" aren't real, they are models in our mind. This is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.15309341]

>>15309292
>falsification
not invented by popper
>ecteenal validation
either this is a made up philosocuck thing or you mean external and scientists already knew about it
>parsimoniousness
scientists already knew about it
>pseudoscience
you already mentioned popper once
>paradigm shifts
only nontrivial thing you could think of and it was literally invented by a physicist taking a day off from real work lmao

[Anonymous No.15309344]

>>15309333
Representational Theory of Mind or Kantian Transcendental Idealism are debatable. For example, look into enactivism or critiques from Speculative Realists.
It's an interesting question regardless.

[Anonymous No.15309351]

>>15309344
Could you link to some papers of their arguments? I am interested.

[Anonymous No.15309354]

>>15309323
>We have zero notion of what it is and have no way to know if they even exist. It could be God, it coukd psychedlics, it could nothing. The end result is the same, it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.15309360]

>>15308551
Hinduism predates all of this, western metaphysics btfo

[Anonymous No.15309366]

>>15309323
>“whatever is causing these phenomenons we have"
How does this not prove that at least it must exist? Even if we admit we can know no more details beyond that.
>>15309325
Why make the differentiation respect to Phenomena if he believe it doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.15309372]

>>15309354

[Anonymous No.15309385]

>>15309341
Listen if you’re going to argue in bad faith then there’s no point. You’re just shit flinging and there’s no reason to engage in it. By “scientist already knew about that” when do you mean exactly?Which scientists? All material evidence proves you wrong. The history of science is recorded in the treatises and papers of 14-16th century reserachers. These were philosophical works treating epistemology and culminating in the scientific method. All of these concepts are very old and originated philosophically. The science we know today is the direct result of philosohic enquiry. No one actually disputes, cause to we imply never havjng read a single science history book

[Anonymous No.15309402]

>>15309351
Meillassoux's After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency is one of the most popular critique of Kantian "correlationism":
https://www.amazon.com/After-Finitude-Essay-Necessity-Contingency/dp/1441173838

Also, I am unable to find the articles from enactivists critiquing representational theory of mind. A subset of them do.

[Anonymous No.15309404]

>>15309354
What do you mean to accomplish with this post?
>>15309366
>How does this not prove that at least it must exist? Even if we admit we can know no more details beyond that
Have you read Kant? You’re using the form of causality here. An synthetic a priori. You have no idea whether causality exists outside of your representations. It’s not enough to summarize Kant, you have to read him.

[Anonymous No.15309426]

>>15308610
I stopped following the comic as soon as I saw the author's twitter posts. He really went full retard with his marxist comments. He also has a pretty obvious bias towards analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15309435]

>>15309366
>Why make the differentiation respect to Phenomena if he believe it doesn't exist?
Because previous metaphysics was focused on 'things-in-themselves' so i guess Kant uses it to differentiate his views as to explain them. It gives negative utility as to free people from the error of false knowledge by making the distinction. Although i believe you can find better discussions on Kants Noumena if you look for secondary lit on it, or even better just read Kant himself. I haven't read him in a while and not well versed enough to give you a good answer.

[Anonymous No.15309439]

>>15309385
>philosophy studies science
>I mean, it s-studied science in the 14th c-century haha
damn look at those goalposts go

[Anonymous No.15309462]

>>15309404
>Have you read Kant?
No, that's why I said I haven't read Kant directly yet
>It’s not enough to summarize Kant, you have to read him.
That sucks because I have a long list of previous reads before I reach him.
>You have no idea whether causality exists outside of your representations
Interesting. He really took this from Hume didn't he? That makes me wonder why mentions the Noumena in the first place.
>>15309435
Thanks, this was starting to be my guess. He just mentions the Noumena as a response to previous Metaphysics philosophy.

I'll eventually start reading him. Haven't finished Hume's Enquiries yet.

[Anonymous No.15309489]

>>15309404
>You have no idea whether causality exists outside of your representations. It’s not enough to summarize Kant, you have to read him.

[Anonymous No.15309498]

>>15309489

[Anonymous No.15309511]

>>15309498

[Anonymous No.15309517]

"everything is everything and nothing" - Hegel

[Anonymous No.15309520]

>>15308610
Not surprising at all. I've never seen a subject that attracts more insufferable dickheads than philosophy. Not the writers of philosophy necessarily, but people who read it. Specifically, people who treat philosophers like characters to jerk off over rather than a collection of ideas.

[Anonymous No.15309531]

>>15309517
>everything is everything and nothing

[Anonymous No.15309533]

>>15308837
based

[Anonymous No.15309551]

>>15309439
Well, if you weren’t so dead set to “look right” and cool in front of anons, you would tell that nothing that I said in that post invalidates the original claim. The concept of science has historical transformed over time. Science in the 19th century is not the same as science in the 20th and these methodological differences were philosophically arrived at. Read The Leviathan and the Air Pump. Psychoanalysis and dialectic materialism were considered properly scientific in the 19th century but not later in the 20th through the direct criticism of logical positivists and their ilk (like Popper). The concept of pseudoscience is not trivial, it literally transformed what was considered proper and methodologically scientific. It changed the whole landscape of what could be considered proper science. Look at the poor gestaltist and functional psycholgists that lost the status of science because of philosophers formalizing a way to make psychoanalysis nonscientific. Stop treating knowledge like a sports team and engage in dialogue. It’s then only way to stop being a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15309576]

>>15309489
I dont even know what point you’re trying to support. It’s like a malfunctioning of the meme mechanism. You’re following a familiar posting format by posting wojaks with a quote, but it conveys nothing because no opposing concept has even been provided itt.

[Anonymous No.15309584]

>>15309576
>I dont even know what point you’re trying to support. It’s like a malfunctioning of the meme mechanism. You’re following a familiar posting format by posting wojaks with a quote, but it conveys nothing because no opposing concept has even been provided itt.

[Anonymous No.15309646]

>>15308551
All of them from Democritus to Kant are correct to some extent, philosolets seethe because they can't into metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15309661]

>>15309439
>>15309551
don't bother this guy is either a troll or functionally retarded with no reading comprehension. Either way he has to help himself before he'll be willing to talk about/understand anything.

[Anonymous No.15309662]

>>15308551
Only the ones I disagree with.
I have literally finished all important philosophy and am going to work the ideas into a narrative poem I'm writing. The pseuds are going to kill me and them themselves hopefully.

[Anonymous No.15309667]

>>15309511

[Anonymous No.15309677]

>>15309551
>Psychoanalysis and dialectic materialism were considered properly scientific in the 19th century
only by normalfags, many of whom still consider them sciences today too. actual scientists never thought marxoidism was scientific

[Anonymous No.15309679]

>>15308601
> "the real monads were the friends we made along the way"
Underrated

[Anonymous No.15309713]

>>15309677
You have no proof of this. All the actual material evidence in terms of reactions and correspondence with Freud’s theories accepts its status as science, even when they disagree with his theories. And all the work Freud builds of from that of Janet, the Salisperie, and that one guy on psychosexual disorders which I forgot, follow the same kind of reasoning and methods that Freud uses. Seriously, why do you guys feel like conjecturing and asserting things on a topic you clearly dont know about? Even Eisntein (a normalfag?) ended up accepting Freud’s concept of repression even if he was influenced by logical positivists to disagree with the status of all psychoanalysis as a science (this was already in the 30s).

[Anonymous No.15309715]

>>15309667

[Anonymous No.15309722]

>>15309713
>Seriously, why do you guys feel like conjecturing and asserting things on a topic you clearly dont know about?
I’m trying to experience what being a philosopher feels like

[Anonymous No.15309731]

>>15309722
Then you’re doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.15309742]

>>15308551
The only way of approaching physics and our understanding of the most base rules of the universe is through observation and striving to create the simplest possible model that completely describes all observations.

[Anonymous No.15309762]

>>15308751
Physics Bachelor of Science here. I don't agree with your statement. The only halfway decent argument I believe you could make for your statement is referencing some physics PhD with a bad case of tenure-itis, where old men start ranting about shit well outside the justifiable realm of their field.

[Anonymous No.15309765]

>everbody's everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wwfUEM3BWU

[Anonymous No.15309767]

>>15309731
pretty sure I nailed it actually

[Anonymous No.15309784]

Metaphysics is fine as long as you remember it's ultimately all just an expression of the deeply-held intuitions we use to make sense of the world which may or may not correspond to actual truths within the external world.

[Anonymous No.15309791]

>>15309715

[Anonymous No.15309793]

>>15308551
Plato 300 BC? He was long dead

[Anonymous No.15309798]

>>15309263
What exactly was Kant saying? Was he saying that we actually can't understand what is going on because it's all just empirical and not synthetic a priori?

[Anonymous No.15309806]

>>15309767
So what do you get out off making pointlessly cheeky statements? When met without an actual argument, do you feel comfortable receding into memeing? You think yourself so smart yet have nothing to show for it.

>>15309762
So you’re a phD in the topic yet ignore the fact that metaphysics was considered a science, even “the mother of the sceinces” all the way into 20th century, when a small philosophic movement (largely invalidated by their own theories today) decided they wanted to revised the definition of science to mean only that with which their own theories agreed with? To the point of calling even evolutionary science a pseudoscience (cleary they had to retrack in this).

[Anonymous No.15309813]

There is no such thing as scientific "achievement". It is mostly filth.

[Anonymous No.15309835]

>>15309762
Science is not just about predicting measurement outcomes, but also explaining them. And doing that requires metaphysics. Whether you call it "metaphysics" is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15309865]

>>15309835
No, what you described is physics. When you create a mathematical equation or set of equations like Maxwell's Laws to explain observation that isn't metaphysics. That is physics. That is very soundly physics. I can't emphasize this enough.

[Anonymous No.15309876]

>>15308551
Plato looks so RIPPED goddamn

[Anonymous No.15309899]

>>15308551
Kant: everything is *undefined things*

thank you master very insightful, and to think educated people are impressed by this holy shit

[Anonymous No.15309907]

>>15309899
you sniveling little rat, you don't even know how much of a kantian you are

[Anonymous No.15309924]

>>15309865
>No, what you described is physics.
Nope, it's metaphysics.

>When you create a mathematical equation or set of equations like Maxwell's Laws to explain observation that isn't metaphysics.
Maxwell's Laws only predict observations, they do not pretend to explain them.

>That is physics. That is very soundly physics. I can't emphasize this enough.
You're wrong. Physicists generally refuse to attempt explanations of phenomena, content instead to create mathematical structures that predict observational outcomes, remaining neutral about whether the structure maps to reality in any way. That's where philosophy comes in -- interpretations of quantum mechanics, etc. Whether a particular physicist is a realist or an instrumentalist is down to personal choice. It is not considered part of his work.

[Anonymous No.15310000]

>>15309924
You are basically wrong on every level.

>Maxwell's Laws only predict observations, they do not pretend to explain them.
Wrong. Maxwells laws by definition explain the interactions of electromagnetic forces and matter. Not completely because its impossible in physics to explain causes completely, there is always a lower layer.

Explaining phenomena is well in the field of physics, physics itself is literally understanding and explaining the physical reality.
What you describe is more of mathematics job then physicists.

[Anonymous No.15310018]

>>15308639
Never heard of philosophy of science?

[Anonymous No.15310115]

>>15310000
Physicists themselves will tell you that they are not in the business of describing the reality of the material world. Their job is to predict measurement outcomes. For example, the apparently nonlocal nature of entanglement is not something that they worry about reconciling with relativity. They are content that quantum theory "works" and is very accurate in predicting outcomes. Explaining what the world would have to be like in order for quantum mechanics to be correct is the job of metaphysics. MWI, Bohmian Mechanics, etc are all philosophical interpretations that are considered outside the realm of physics proper (that is, as practiced in university departments). These interpretative metaphysical activities are still a part of science, however. Philosophy is just the more theoretical aspect of science.

[Anonymous No.15310121]

>One hundred years ago today, the most audacious revolution in history took place in Russian. Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks imagined a world completely remade, on the principles of justice, equality, and solidarity. They imagined a world where everyone works together for the common good, free from the class divisions that tore Russian apart, and continue to tear the world apart. The workers would no longer have to obey their bosses, women would no have to obey their husbands, and everyone would live in true freedom and equality. They imagined a state that was controlled by the common workers, not the powerful property owning elite.

[Anonymous No.15310128]

>Regardless of what happened next, and why, we can say that largely in the hundred years since, the dream itself has been destroyed. Today we are taught that we cannot imagine a new form of society, only make minor, superficial changes to what we have. But what is life without a dream? When we awake from a beautiful dream, to the harsh reality of the world, do we vow to never dream again?

>Oh, and also, let's not put Stalin in charge next time.

>The song was an actual song of the Russian Revolution, called Rise brothers sunward to freedom. I couldn't find a modern rendition, so the Polish revolutionary song Varshavianka (Whirlwinds of Danger), will have to do.

[Anonymous No.15310228]

>>15309677
normalfags don't think about psychoanalysis or dialectical materialism at all, you need to get out of your university bubble

[Anonymous No.15310964]

>>15309341
>>parsimoniousness
>scientists already knew about it
What the fuck does this mean? Scientists knew about parsimoniousness before what, philosophy was invented? Before scientists came out of the womb? What does anything in your post mean for that matter?

[Anonymous No.15310989]

>>15310018

[Anonymous No.15311016]

>>15308551
>Everything is forms
The ultimate and final truth, no matter what a world or universe would be like, it would have to have to consisting of shapes and forms, literally things. Now the only question that remains is: What is the cause for these shapes and forms to WORK? Why are there humans that need to breathe instead of just being humans end of story? Why does the universe have rules and laws? My guess is God.

[Anonymous No.15311050]

>>15309248
"What is science?" is not a question asked within science. It is a philosophical question first and foremost. That's why philosophy studies science, while science studies everything else in the material world.

[Anonymous No.15311595]

>>15310115
>Physicists themselves will tell you that they are not in the business of describing the reality of the material world. Their job is to predict measurement outcomes.
You are just spouting endless bullshit. Those measurements are OF REALITY. What else is there to explain about the physical universe than everything we know about the physical universe through observation? Nothing.

Good lord, there is nothing more to physics than explaining how reality works.

>interpretations of quantum mechanics
>but WHY did the ball CHOOSE to fall?
See OP.

[Anonymous No.15311629]

>>15309248
Well, it does. Maybe you didn't know, but it actually does (among other things).

[Anonymous No.15311634]

>>15308551
i hate existential comics

[Anonymous No.15311935]

>>15310989
Philosophy studies science to get an understanding of how it works and how its results should be interpreted and not fall into confirmation bias and this kind of shit. Scientists don't need to know jackshit about it because that's just not their field of study.

[Anonymous No.15312143]

>based

[Anonymous No.15312184]

>>15311629
nah

[Anonymous No.15312190]

>>15311935
>scientists don’t need to know how to interpret scientific results
philosocucks lol

[Anonymous No.15312207]

>>15310115
>Explaining what the world would have to be like in order for quantum mechanics to be correct is the job of metaphysics
Completely wrong, as proven by the embarrassing failures of MWI and Bohm mechanics

[Anonymous No.15312221]

>>15312207
They didn't 'fail', brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15312240]

>>15310121
>>15310128
This is like some furry commie shit, dripping with autism.

[Anonymous No.15312243]

>>15312221
Yes they did, pseud. Both are totally incoherent.

[Anonymous No.15312255]

>>15312243
>projecting this hard
Wew lad.

[Anonymous No.15312257]

>>15311016
Did you even read Plato, you retard?

[Anonymous No.15312261]

>>15309192
>expecting knowledge from an an*lytic communist bugman
Anon...

[Anonymous No.15312263]

>>15308551
This reads like a bait comic but it's sincere.

[Anonymous No.15312269]

>>15311595
>autistic bugman tries to chime in
Lmao. Come back when you get your GED, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.15312270]

>>15312255
Two posts is all it took for you to run out of meaningful statements, I see.

[Anonymous No.15312280]

>>15312261
Aristotle was the original analytic philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15312284]

>>15312280
the absolute state of you retards

[Anonymous No.15312286]

>>15312270
>still projecting
Weeew

[Anonymous No.15312302]

>>15312269
Linked to the wrong post, friend?

[Anonymous No.15312306]

Everything is Being
>rekt

[Anonymous No.15312311]

>>15312286
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.15312312]

>>15312284
Kys mouthbreather

[Anonymous No.15312328]

>>15312302
>t-t-there must be some mistake
Take a hike, bugman.

[Anonymous No.15312342]

>>15309308
'warranted assumptions' is a neat concept

[Anonymous No.15312354]

>>15309360
In that order?

[Anonymous No.15312387]

>>15309662
Godspeed

[Anonymous No.15312397]

>>15309679
seconded

[Anonymous No.15312400]

>>15308551
>Is the study of metaphysics just an ultra-long example of the sunk cost fallacy?
It's an example of a waste of time, for some people it's an example of the sunk cost fallacy but that's not true of all people who study it (depends on time committed). The sunk cost fallacy, as I understand it, can't apply to disciplines or institutions outside of individuals. Individuals can be pot committed, in theory a discipline or institution isn't subject to the same psychological condition (though if the practitioners/members are, then it's six of one, a half dozen of the other).

[Anonymous No.15312428]

>>15308551
how important is it to read berkeley?

[Anonymous No.15312441]

>>15309662
based

[Anonymous No.15312442]

>>15309762
>bachelor of science here

[Anonymous No.15312447]

>>15308551
Is the joke supposed to be his bad reading of Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.15312477]

>>15308551
Metaphysics really is the only thing worth studying.

[Anonymous No.15312506]

>>15312240
Yeah the first time I saw it I kept waiting for the punchline. There isn't one.

[Anonymous No.15312628]

>>15310989
I see it as equivalent to the eccentricity that accompanies all sorts of other artistic genius, and which is clearly wrong, but generally tolerated out of respect of the quality of the work the artist does in their field. Something like Bobby Fischer's antisemetism. There's no international jewish conspiracy, and he's clearly irrational, but no one's going to call him on it because all anyone cares about is that he can keep beating communists at chess, and if paranoid jew-hatred is part of the reason he's so good at it, most people would rather he keep hating jews and winning at chess. And it's quite the same with Feynman, in that it's worth tolerating his retarded little analogy/superiority complex because all anyone actually cares about is that he solve quantum electrodynamics, and if him wanting to be a bird rather than a philosopher is instrumental to that goal, then let him keep on wanting it and saying dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.15312732]

>>15311935
Science don’t need to know anything about it because it’s enough that science explains things well. And that’s the whole point. We don’t need to know what’s “really there” in order to know that we have expedient means for explaining and manipulating the world around us. It’s really just an academic exercise and resembles a folk science more than it does a body of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15312749]

>>15308593
Derrida is a metaphyscisist himself.

[Anonymous No.15312846]

>>15312628
>There's no international jewish conspiracy
cringe

[Anonymous No.15312859]

>>15312846
There isn't. Once you meet them, you find out they're the most /lit/ and based of all people.

[Anonymous No.15312877]

>>15312859
>Once you meet them
t. met one in his life. dumb goy

[Anonymous No.15312900]

>>15308631
I need an actual explanation of what the hell "radical freedom" means because all these comics tell me is that it's a psuedointellectual pretext to randumb.

[Anonymous No.15312916]

>>15308551
Platonism is a joke.

[Anonymous No.15312926]

>>15312732
Metaphysics is simply the explanatory part of science.

[Anonymous No.15312969]

>>15312926
No it isn’t. And I explained why it’s completely unnecessary and irrelevant to science in my post.

[Anonymous No.15313226]

>>15312969
No you didn't. You have only outed yourself as a bugman retard who knows nothing.

[Anonymous No.15313315]

>>15312916
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.15313319]

>>15312969
>it's unnecessary to distinguish WHY is something from WHAT is something
How can someone be so much of a science bugman and out of touch with reality to think this?

[Anonymous No.15313548]

>>15312428
He was right about everything.

[Anonymous No.15313588]

>>15312916
wow plato btfo

[Anonymous No.15313774]

>>15309284
100% of hydrogen is emanation from God

[Anonymous No.15313794]

>>15308551
somebody just edit this to make Wittgenstein say "Everything is language"
Analytic cucks BTFO

[Anonymous No.15313828]

>>15310989
>Don't ask big questions, goyim!
Every time.

[Anonymous No.15313859]

>>15308551
Well, you see, everyone from Descartes and onward is are beardless and low test because they are beardless and therefore their opinions and observations are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15313900]

>>15308551
>le skips the scholastics face

[Anonymous No.15313910]

>>15308639
You refer to lumped-together 'science' as an ancient man might once have referred to the great sculpture of an ox on the hill beneath which unwanted children are ritually burned.

[Anonymous No.15313912]

>>15308551
The observations and formed opinions of everyone from Descartes and onward are irrelevant and low test. You can tell by just noticing that they are beardless and therefore more akin to women. Bearded men are grounded in not just the essential, but the actual paradigm of reality because they are high test. This key indicator will never steer you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15313927]

>>15308580
The fuck is this meme?
What does Buddhism has to do with your race?

[Anonymous No.15313970]

>>15313927
t. jewish buddhist

[Anonymous No.15314352]

>>15313970
t. unfunny redditor