Is scientism, etc. anti-intellectual and even philistine? It seems like it ultimately leads to a marginalization of the arts, philosophy, and literature, and so on, because since the scientific method cannot provide valuation, the basest whim is seen as equal to the most cultivated taste, the liberal capitalist idea of value is applied to all aspects of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHoAQW_DBI4
this sounds more like philosophy than history OP. I think you're looking for >>>/lit/
>>397423
Did you read the sticky? This board is more than just history. The OP falls under this board's purview.
>>397423
/lit/ is for philosophy where works are explicitly mentioned and discussed. More general philosophy goes here.
>>397532
>More general philosophy goes here.
A high level of discourse is expected. If you're not mentioning works and discussing them you belong off this fucking board.
This is not the place to shitpost cuntish stuff you thought after cones that the medieval scholasiticists dismissed 800 years ago.
Yes, I include "new atheism" under that head.
>>397553
I never mentioned new atheism.
>>397410
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1la_ykW3n2g
>>397434
Seriously, though. What were you trying to communicate, OP, other than the fact that you are super smart?
Do you mean that scientism leads to a nihilistic view of aesthetics? I could see that. If there are no platonic forms, gods, etc., it really cannot be the case that Ovid, Homer, or Dante are any better than Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, etc. because there is no such thing as meaning.
>>397410
>aesthetics is knowledge
What. The only thing scientism can do is systematically determine what makes things aesthetically pleasing.
>>397573
this is my favorite poem and this is surprisingly a good recitation. thank you.
>>397575
I don't see how anything I wrote in the OP indicates that I'm trying to look smart, I didn't use any obscure terminology.
I mean scientism leads to a nihilistic view of all values.
>>397587
>I mean scientism leads to a nihilistic view of all values.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXEiKPxCSdA
>>397600
But this doesn't really scow. It's been pushed (purely as alternative to religion), but it doesn't work, at least in that particular function, because most unbelievers don't feel that awe inspired that and never will...even if they say, "Wow, it's amazing," they will not dwell on it every day when they get up, get together a couple of hours every week to celebrate it, they won't take time out of each day to contemplate it, they won't speak about it before each meal. It doesn't fulfill the function when it comes to awe, the awe is not nearly as authentic.
>>397619
No my friend, it makes it more beautiful and awe inspiring.
>>397619
Do you have proof anyone does that out of awe? Or at all?
>>397423
This is a pseudophilosophy containment board because while the words and arguments in these posts are honeyed, it's really just a shitposting circlejerk but with pseudointellectuals instead. /sci/ and /lit/ were tired of their bullshit. /sci/ has even banned threads on consciousness because it always always ALWAYS turned into shitflinging and "lol you think it's all atoms ur a scrub" vs ">300k starting hahahaha >implying it isn't"
It's basically another case of /asp/ but instead of getting the intellectual equivalent of rasslin cancer forced upon us at a point later than the board's creation, mootwo decided that it would be best to create thinly veiled containment from the get go.
>>397640
A high quality of discourse.
Read the fucking sticky.
Report yourself.
>>397640
To be honest though if it were just history it'd be pre-containment /asp/ speed.
>>397644
It says that but that's the flame to which moths are drawn.
I think it was a good idea.
>>397410
Between blind devotion to a religion and blind devotion to science: the blind devotion to science will create wonders, the blind devotion to religion has you living in caves and worshiping your own feces.
An ideal society would have both, the trouble is Christianity is in direct conflict with science. So that's why Christianity is doomed to die until a better religion comes along. That's already happening but you would need to know the right people to be Illuminated about this.
![in-the-loop-53[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7EHMvXX.jpg "in-the-loop-53[1].jpg")
>>397431
Within the board's 'purview'? Where do you think you are, some fucking regency costume drama? This is an image board, not some fucking Jane fucking Austen novel! Allow me to pop a jaunty little bonnet on your purview and ram it up your shitter with a lubricated horse cock
>>398200
>Christianity is in direct conflict with science
Erm, what?
>>398376
Think about the huge issue with evolution.
And no don't give me apologetic about how the bible is compatible with it. That's irrelevant the point is that there are people actually fucking with science because of the religion (whether they are interpretting scripture correctly or not). Some 40% of Christians in America do not believe in evolution because they think it breaks scripture.
Apart from that there is simply no place in science for anthropomorphic deities. Concepts like Deism and Pantheism, pan-psychism are actually far more compatible with the current scientific model. Although I think Orthodox can take up the last item I mentioned.
>>398397
There's no place in science for any deities desu senpai
>>397410
Scientism is mostly a straw-man since there's so few that actually adhere to it yet a lot of people are accused for it. It's very anti-intellectual and the only people you will find supporting it are undergrad engineers who really don't know what they're doing except playing memory with their formula sheets.
>>398403
I used to think that too (I'm not a Christian) but I eventually learned there are much broader concepts of spiritual things that can fit with science.
Read a bit on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
Especially the arguments for it, which involves evolution and physics arguments.
Results of Christianity:
Poverty
No stability
Dark Ages
No technology
No knowledge
Results of Science:
Peace
Medicine
Philosophy
Technology
Men on the fucking moon
The Big Bang and other theorys
Penicillin
>>398397
>Some 40% of Christians in America do not believe in evolution because they think it breaks scripture.
They're heretics, they don't even follow the Church, they just make up their own ideas.
>Apart from that there is simply no place in science for anthropomorphic deities.
That's natural, because science is a strictly materialist endeavor. I'm not sure how that puts religion in conflict with science, unless you consider scientism is a doctrine of science.
It's a shame the abrahamic religions have taken over the world so thoroughly and held such a tight grip for so long.
I'd like to see an alternate reality where the majority are deists and pantheists.
>>398456
Good bait, but you have to use it on a less thoughtful board to get it to work. Try /pol/
>>398460
Pantheism is really just atheism with different semantics.
Deism is pretty pointless. It has no relevance to our everyday life and philosophy, because deism is the idea that, apart from creating the universe, God is completely irrelevant....he effectively stopped existing, at least for us..
>>397640
All of this could equally be because of guilt and superstition
>>398459
>They're heretics, they don't even follow the Church
Protestants are Christians. In fact they represent about half the Christians in the world. Do not give me this no true Scotsman argument about how only Catholics are Christian.
>because science is a strictly materialist endeavor. I'm not sure how that puts religion in conflict with science,
Materialism and idealism are connected. What happens in one affects what goes on in the other. For instance. The idea of God as being someone that has gets upset, forgives, or shows very human emotions doesn't make sense anymore. We know that these things are at least partially linked to the material, to such an extent where if there is no material element they can't exist. So the idea of God as being completely disconnected from material and wrote out some moral law to obeyed is sounding like superstition.
A few better understanding of God would be something like the World Soul which Hegel proposed, God is just an extension of humanity: the super-collective idealism. Or Spinoza's God where the sum of all natural laws are them-self one thing that holds the universe together.
>>398479
>Protestants are Christians. In fact they represent about half the Christians in the world. Do not give me this no true Scotsman argument about how only Catholics are Christian.
I'm Orthodox.
Protestants are certainly Christians. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be heretics, they'd be "heathens".
> The idea of God as being someone that has gets upset, forgives, or shows very human emotions doesn't make sense anymore.
God does not have human emotions in Orthodoxy, except insofar as Christ was human. God is ineffable. Ascribing human emotions to him are just our personal expressions, they are like a child depicting a man as a stick figure. Scripture is not the truth, it is merely a description of the truth.
>So the idea of God as being completely disconnected from material and wrote out some moral law to obeyed is sounding like superstition.
The moral law of the old covenant was really just carnal law, it wasn't spiritual. God guided it, but it's not God's moral law. God is, technically, beyond morality, as Kierkegaard explained.
>A few better understanding of God would be something like the World Soul which Hegel proposed, God is just an extension of humanity: the super-collective idealism.
Yeah, Teilhard also advanced that theory.
>Or Spinoza's God where the sum of all natural laws are them-self one thing that holds the universe together.
Spinoza's pantheism, as I have already pointed out, is atheism. It's just a matter of semantics.
>>398465
Pantheism has a huge difference when you go about spiritualism. If we our right now are not an individual unit detached from the rest of everything, but itself just a subset of the one great whole (God, the universe, Nature etc) than it really changes how you think about life and death. You don't really "die" it's more like a transformation. One part of the universe has changed shape and that shape is where your body used to be. The distinction between the self and the rest of the universe becomes blurry.
This sounds a little abstract but if you pay attention to some of the big celebrities in atheism you can actually see Spinoza's ideas creeping in their speech. "You and I are made of atoms from the same star!" etc. Spiritualism creeps up on people.
>>398497
Anyone who has any cursory knowledge of philosophy knows that distinction is arbitrary. Berkeley developed this into idealism, and his brand of course was properly Christian (as opposed to Hegel's, which only was Christian in a figurative sense).
>>398497
>This sounds a little abstract but if you pay attention to some of the big celebrities in atheism you can actually see Spinoza's ideas creeping in their speech. "You and I are made of atoms from the same star!" etc. Spiritualism creeps up on people.
And I reiterate that there is nothing spiritual about Spinoza. Spinoza are a proto-materialist. Saying, "Let us call the material world 'God'" does not make you spiritual, and really doesn't make you any kind of theist either.
>>398494
That's some classy stuff. Orthodoxy is pretty neat.
I'd disagree about Spinoza not being spiritual. The material can contain spiritual as long as there is some idealism involved.
>>398526
Orthodoxy is the unchanged faith of the original Christians, and I am deeply thankful to be blessed by it.
I don't think idealism is necessarily the same as spiritualism, except in the Latin, Western sense which doesn't make a distinction between dianoia and noesis (partly because of terms like Geist which muddy the distinction, but mostly because of certain theological mistakes of scholasticism--not that I am condemning scholasticism altogether, of course)
>>398494
whait is that means God actually is not love ?
I'm orthodox too , but i'm new to it.
>>398494
Quality posting, right there.
>>398633
God is not love insofar as love is a chemical in your brain. Love for God is not a doing or a feeling, it is his being. We can't begin to fathom God's command for us to love without significant fasting and prayer and confession, so that we clean all the sinful crust away and can feel his love in a very real way and know it is his love, and from there channel it to others in our everyday life. It is much more profound than human love, human love is only an analogy, it's barely comparable.
>>398672
Thank you.
>>398692
God bless you.
Christ is born.
>>398309
>>397410
>O, poso tha mon leipsei anto to pleibeio
Any greek speakers want to help me out?
