>Literature nourishes the human soul >Science claims there

Science can only validate what is quantifiable. There is no unit of measurement utilized in analyzing souls, so they're scientifically invalid.
Literature does not have this boundary not just because it's more general in scope, but also because a piece's quality is deduced only through comparisons to culturally accepted standards.

>>9843097
That said, I don't think the statements "Literature nourishes the human soul." and "Science claims there is no soul." are intended to dominate one another. Consider that scientific literature exists; is it innately futile?

>>9842383
>science is theory via induction
>induction is an act of faith
what's the conflict here?

a soul is an aeshetic concept.

There are places
not to be found but to be recognized...

>>9843116
Go back to /pol/ negro

File: 1492542235419.jpg (23KB, 408x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 408x400px

>>9843144
Ok!! Romantic struggler you ;)

>>9842383
science generally,want to tell you the truth from the
scientific and logical point of view.
Literature,Philosophy want to tell you the truth fro the humanistic/individualistic point of view
choose

Both are wrong what the fuck is that reasoning

>>9843116
4u

>>9842383

I am constantly in conflict with myself over things that science cannot really explain or others keep saying

stuff like an afterlife or a soul or god or any of it

i just don't fucking know and i want to know and i would like to have faith in something beyond me but i just can't shake the idea that there is nothing, but at the same time i can't shake the idea that there is something

it'd be neat if there was a god or even if there wasn't and i'd finally get some fucking answers or am i even fucking real is any of this even real holy shit

>>9843249

It's the last mystery we have. To have it spoiled would make life cumbersome.

literature nourishes my biochemical gestalt :^)

>>9842383
Science counts on the 5 senses to bring us to truth. Whilst we already know that the universe and everything in the universe is multi-dimensional. (shamanism for example taps into this.) So how could sience reach truth when in order to do so they have to transcend those very senses from which they started out to learn about reality?
I think anyone genuinely interested in truth will rather say I don't know then claim that there is no soul. As you can't really know, less you would experience this personally or see this for yourself or science moves beyond the 5 senses

I personally believe in a soul and I also believe in sience.

But literature's references to the soul are either religious/spiritual or aestetic.

But I got to admit along with the rest of the commenters that your reasoning is a big what the fuck.

Soul, for many, is just a more wistful way of saying psyche, and science never said anything about there not being a psyche and a human experience onto which we can project meaning. Also, who said all literature confirmed and uplifted the idea of the human soul? literature can be depressing af

>>9842383

Go read "The Fisherman and His Soul" by Oscar Wilde right now, and you'll get it.

>>9842383
>“In opposition to the project summarized in the Theses on Feuerbach (the realization of philosophy in praxis which supersedes the opposition between idealism and materialism), the spectacle simultaneously preserves, and imposes within the pseudo-concrete of its universe, the ideological characteristics of materialism and idealism. The contemplative side of the old materialism which conceives the world as representation and not as activity–and which ultimately idealizes matter–is fulfilled in the spectacle, where concrete things are automatically the masters of social life. Reciprocally, the dreamed activity of idealism is equally fulfilled in the spectacle, through the technical mediation of signs and signals-which ultimately materialize an abstract ideal.”

science is merely an useful representation of the world, it is not the world, which encompasses a much broader spectrum of experience.

>>9843097
>>9843110
Good posts my friend

>>9843097
>Science can only validate what is quantifiable
That's not entirely true, at some level there are things you can't measure (even theoretically) but you can still deduce the existence and properties of. I also wouldn't call literature more general per se, more that they look at things from philosophically different viewpoints.
>>9843110
Scientific literature really only refers to journals/articles and what not, sure there are expositions which you might derive the same sort of 'spiritual nourishment' from as many do but I think the big difference is intent, with scientific literature existing to communicate research progress and what might be called 'classical literature' communicating ideas/theme centered around humans themselves (there are certainly authors who attempt to explain the natural world without science but I usually find these to have very weak/dated arguments or to be a complete nonstarter)
>>9843111
So you're a Hume guy I take it? Look, even Hume at some point realized the argument kind of falls flat and for the most part in the philosophy of science the problem of induction really isn't much of an issue anymore.
>>9843249
That's called being human, it's the same existential struggle most have at some point in there life.
>>9843258
Actually there are plenty of other mysteries out there, and life wouldn't be made cumbersome if we knew if god/soul existed or not, there's quite a bit more to living than just that.

>>9845844
progress of science is a codeword for the progress of the technics of domestication