Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: mr_hudson.jpg (20KB, 501x386px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 501x386px
Why does /lit/ defend a completely unfalsifiable philosophy from Spinoza but not the bongle-dingle philosophy I made up 5 minutes ago which is completely correct because they are deduced from my dingle-bongle axioms? Because masturbating over Spinoza gives you pseudo-intellectual cred while masturbating over a no-name person's unfalsifiable philosophy does not?
Why does /lit/ talk about Newton being interested in theology in a half assed and hand wavey way, and as if we should think higher of Newton becasue of this? Because /lit/ takes it as a truth that being associated with, and having great reverence for, the bible should earn someone greater respect. Due to the fact that religious authorities and sources have had a lot of respect at various times, and nothing at all to do with the "truth" of religion. Or, in other words, and completely expectedly: For completely pseudo-intellectual reasons.
Why does /lit/ strongly state that "Science can't give us moral answers!"? Becasue it is true, AND to imply that philosophy (not including science) can give us moral answers- which is wrong, as the moral answers would have to be deduced from prior axioms (so in other words, the "right" answer could be defined differently by different people).
Why will /lit/ insult anyone who uses the word "unfalsifiable"? Because the circlejerk is being interrupted.
>>
wrong board my man
>>
>/lit/ poster
>can't read
Like pottery.
>>
It doesn't matter, Wittgenstein already solved philosophy.
>>
>>2072355
leave it to /lit/fags to bring harry potter to /his/ for no fucking reason
>>
>>2072356
no he didn't
>>
>>2072349
slytherin?
>>
>>2072349
>unfalsifiable
Meaningless word. Back to philosophy 101 you go to read about the verificationists and their shitty shitty worldview.
>>
>>2072918
>Why does /lit/ defend a completely unfalsifiable philosophy from Spinoza but not the bongle-dingle philosophy I made up 5 minutes ago which is completely correct because they are deduced from my dingle-bongle axioms? Because masturbating over Spinoza gives you pseudo-intellectual cred while masturbating over a no-name person's unfalsifiable philosophy does not?
Yes. This is not /lit/ though
>>2072918
Why would anyone go to philosophy 101 in the first place instead of reading a little and forming your own position?
>>
>>2072918
>Meaningless word.
>>
It's because the notion of "falsifiability" obviously implies an experimental ethos which only accords reality to things which are mensurable. If it can't be reduced to a mathematical equation, it's not real Being. This is why scientists and their acolytes go all in for pragmatism and analytic philosophy, because it's axiomatic for them that men can only know what they make themselves. If it ain't the imitation or re-presentation of natural processes in the carefully "controlled" environment of the laboratory experiment, it must be bosh. It's even worse when the utilitarian homo fabers come out of the cupboard with their one abiding criterion of usefulness: they mean to say if a particular form of knowledge has no technological applicability it must be worthless. This is, of course, absolutely true, if we want to transform use-values into exchange-values on the commodity market.
Spinoza was, in fact, very sensitive to the famous reductio scientiae ad mathematicum. His whole philosophy is stylised by the (in Nietzsche's words) hocus pocus of geometric form.
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1