Is this /lit/? By the way I'm legitimately asking. What

>>9896794
Its certainly Autistic. But I guess why not transform the most popular YA novel into a philosophical manifesto? Is there a better way to indoctrinate children?

Bad cover though, should have some harry potter looking character with just enough differences to avoid trademark infringement.

Also, I wonder if JKR knows about this and what she thinks about it.

I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE geek-bait.

Idle distraction for anyone else.

>>9896794
>>>/lit/rules/1

we have literally 1 (one) rule fuckface

File: 000176c8.jpg (9KB, 189x230px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 189x230px

I don't care about the book. But I am almost obsessed with the rationalist movement. I was on a board with (other) youngsters who were into LessWrong, and had exchanges with them. It was mixture of New Atheist views on religion, with millenarianism views on science, and emphasis on reason and debate that characterized them.

It seems to be a rather small group but they are intelligent and highly educated, so I think we will not hear the last of them. And yes, I find them autistic. I used to make embarrasing rants about "the culture of autism", which was also influenced by another disagreement on yet another board.

These experiences with them has shaped my own views, though many of them were already there before them, influenced by a lazy reading of Nietzsche, and by the psychology I had read - which by the way I shared with LessWrong, but I take a (more) fatalist view on cognitive biases while they take the view that you can overcome bias.

I no longer go there, and it is very fitting that I've come here on 4chan. The culture of /lit/ actually pushes me more into the direction of science, while at that board it pushed me more into philosophy.

File: lazlo.jpg (30KB, 700x381px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x381px

>>9897064
>The culture of /lit/ actually pushes me more into the direction of science, while at that board it pushed me more into philosophy
I never got the impression that hard science was LessWrong's bag. I mean, it always felt like self-help with extra steps. It was philosophy on it's face with an extremist bend towards logic. It's still fun to get lost in every once and a while. That said, I never read the book because I want to go to the grave having never read Harry Potter fanfiction, or Harry Potter anything else for that matter

>>9897290
>I never got the impression that hard science was LessWrong's bag.
I agree with that statement. But note I was describing my experience with the members of a niche interest board I was on who were into LessWrong, not LessWrong itself.

I've only looked at a couple of posts of LessWrong, but never went into it. I think some of it could actually be interesting, but I was put off because, simply, it conflicted with my own views.

The members on that niche board were almost all to put it crudely >>9897017 >I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE, and while that has not stopped me from reading the parts of science I'm interested in, which is barely hard science by the way, it did result push me into one direction.

On /lit/ there is more exposure to continental philosophy and psychoanalysis, which I largely or fully reject, and which pushes me in other directions.

>>9897396

What of 'continental philosophy' have you read, reasonably considered, and subsequently 'rejected'?

File: ace2.jpg (23KB, 522x329px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 522x329px

>>9897396
>I was describing my experience with the members of a niche interest board
I've found plenty of forums that did rationalist movement, never any chan boards. I understand the desire to write LW and similar movements off as popsci bait, but I fell hard into the habit of thinking about the motivations of AI. They'll probably think it quaint that whole large groups of humans tried to predict what a super-intelligence would do. My guess is they'll just suck out our eyeballs and spit them at each other for some important reason we can't fathom

>>9897425
I actually don't want to speak too much about myself.
>What of 'continental philosophy' have you read, reasonably considered, and subsequently 'rejected'?
At first I had read a little philosophy and bits about it, but before those discussions I didn't have much interest in philosophy as a whole. That changed when somebody made me more interested. I loaned a few books from the library that discussed the history of philosophy.

I wanted to get in "postmodernism" as the book called it, as I found some of the ideas interesting. I actually asked somewhere, and they gave me books to read. Well, I admit I didn't read them and did not buy the books they recommended me. I read several pages at plato.edu. And I did read "The Sublime Object Of Ideology" and "Simulacra and Simulation".

With what I know now, it doesn't make sense of course to read Zizek's book without having read (about) Hegel and Lacan and understanding them.

But now to answer your question, I did read those, but I rejected them on the basis that they were too difficult to read. I think you will say this is unreasonable. I was familiar with scientific textbooks, and while that took time to understand, I found them more accessible.

That I reject them also has to do with a scientific view. I think you will disagree with this, and the usual trope is that "you have to read them and the thinkers that influenced them before you can judge it." So I want to ask you: how much do you inform yourself on neuroscience and psychology, and science in general?

Because even if it was written in - what I think is - more accessible language, I would most likely reject it because it conflict with what I read on, say, psychology. Zizek's ideas on ideology conflict what I've learned in psychology and so on to make one example.

>>9897612
>Zizek's ideas on ideology conflict what I've learned in psychology and so on to make one example.

How?

File: MJ Transparency of Evil.png (126KB, 625x304px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 625x304px

>>9897612
>"Simulacra and Simulation".
not actually the easiest place to enter continental philosophy, or even Baudrillard. Check out some of his lighter books like The Transparency of Evil or Cool Memories.

This is from Transparency of Evil.

and hey, admitting you didn't understand something is fair and nothing to be ashamed of. But, just because you didn't understand what you read, doesn't mean you need to 'reject it'. Keep reading and investigating whatever you're interested in. Maybe someday check out Baudrillard or Lyotard or someone else again if your interested.

>>9897612
"reject them because too hard to read"

How old are you?

To reject the whole of continental philosophy without so much as picking up a book . . . . . . .because of a "scientific view"

what the fuck

>>9896794
It's /lit/ as in it was fairly unique at the time and the author TRIED to present broader philosophical ideas through the fic and established the rational fic subgenre. However, the fic itself has large flaws and there are simply better works that build upon what it did and are less arrogant (start with Mother of Learning, move on to Worm and UNSONG).

File: themorallandscape.jpg (39KB, 322x499px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 322x499px

>>9897612
i got the perfect book for you because you are so interested in philosophy

complete with an endorsement blurb by the top author of our day

http://danluu.com/su3su2u1/hpmor/

>>9896794
I actually liked about the first two thirds of it. Power fantasy and messaging done well if you're willing to suspend disbelief a bit at the protagonist being 12 years old.

In my opinion though, when Yudkowsky decided to make the Dementors representative of Death instead of Entropy, he fucked up. The anti-death message (which I don't even disagree with) ended up taking over the narrative.

>>9897950
Ha real funny buddy, you and >>9897909 are exactly the types of responses I expected. At least I was being sincere. I'm not even sure what my age has to do with it, I'm 25.
And you both dodged my own question. That makes me think you both only read (certain) philosophy and don't bother with anything else for whatever reason. You blame me for rejecting continental philosophy, while probably rejecting, say, psychology or biology at the same time.
>because of a "scientific view"
Not suprised you don't like that. It has to do with what psychology says about human beings; they are not rational and prone to biases. That puts severe limits to analysis.I do think that knowledge, meaning and ideas can not only be found in science. But there is no reason for me to read what cannot be said in easier terms, and yes, isn't scientific. Not everything has to be scientific, that is not even doable, but at least use clear and direct language.

At least >>9897950 is somewhat funny. You >>9897909 on the other hand, with the way you expressed yourself in this single comment. Has it come to your mind that maybe I have limited time as well, and that it is not practical for me? For every continental philosophical book that doesn't use clear and direct language, I could be reading several papers, one or more textbook or popular scientific book, or a novel.
>>9897875
Give me some time.

>>9897875
Judge yourself:
>Psychological research[33] increasingly suggests that ideologies reflect (unconscious) motivational processes, as opposed to the view that political convictions always reflect independent and unbiased thinking. Jost, Ledgerwood and Hardin proposed in 2008 that ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships.[33] These authors conclude that such motives may lead disproportionately to the adoption of system-justifying worldviews. Psychologists have generally found that personality traits, individual difference variables, needs, and ideological beliefs seem to have a common thread.
There is a biological basis, also genetics, to ideology, as described in Predisposed by John R. Hibbing et al.