Daily reminder that naive realism is a metaphysical belief.
And no one claimed otherwise.
>>868332
Except all the STEMlords ever
>i LOVE science but metaphysics is USELESS *tips*
>>868335
That's more of a logical positivist thing to say than anything that has anything to do with naive realism.
Empirical idealism is arguing for naive realism in a sense I suspect whatever strawman you're attacking wouldn't agree with.
>>868335
>another anti-positivism thread
Do you have a shitposting quota from your humanities department or is it a personal goal?
Daily reminder that none of this means anything.
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
>>868353
Just imagine if people started to bitch about Positivism as much as /pol/ bitch about Cultural Marxism.
> DON'T believe the Positivists lies!
> For centuries, the Positivist agenda have forced their way into the academics, trying to undermine the western civilization from within.
> August Comte, founder of Sociology AND Positivism (Coinsidence? I think not!) wanted to render all metaphysics into natural sciences at some point, and wanted to use sociology for this.
> Marx, positivist who want to reduce western culture to nothing more than superstructures upheld on a raw materialistic basis!
> OY KOMRADE, DON'T LET THE PEOPLE THINK CULTURE IS OF ANY IMPORTANCE! IT'S ALL MATERIALISM! WE'RE ALL MADE OUT OF STARSTUFF!
> EVERYTHING related to culture is constantly under attack by Pajeet in India convincing you to get a degree in engineering instead of one in classical western literature so he can get your job for a lower pay while destroying your culture from within!
> You want to talk about the Frankfurt School? Bet you've never heard about the Vienna Cirlce!
> The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers who sought to reconceptualize empiricism by means of their interpretation of then recent advances in the physical and formal sciences, and ensuring that western culture would be rendered as nothing else but a 4000 year old mistake!
> A radically anti-metaphysical stance was supported by an empiricist criterion of meaning and a broadly logicist conception of mathematics. This resulted in arguing for a rejection of ethics and political philosophy, and instead accept the “error-theory” of meta-ethics, meaning that there is no true or false ethical claims, just claims making us feel nice.
>POSITIVISM HAVE BEEN THE STRONGEST PUSHER FOR “MUH FEELS” BEING SOMETHING TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THAT THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION HAVE EVER SEEN!
> ARE YOU GETTING THAT LIBERAL ARTS DEGREE YET?!
>>868324
>implying I know what that means ?
>>868471
/pol/ is already doing that. Just look at any christcuck thread.
Dumping /phil/
>>868718
>>868722
>>869109
I remember trying to debate them once and asking for a simple objective fact that the writings of Nietzsche, Kant, etc has ever brought us. They asked what "objective" and "fact" mean and went on to have a long semantics discussion about fuck knows what. At least Christfags aren't pretentious
The humanities butthurt in this thread is palpable.
>The microscientists claim that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 dimensions, dispute each other's claims and try to "find" exactly how many dimensions there "are". But a dimension is not something that exists outside the brain, but a mere concept that the brain creates and projects onto its environment in order to "understand" it (i.e., as I'll be explaining shortly, predict its behavior with a view to shaping it for its wishes). The microscientists have once more mistaken their models for reality, and have confused the question of the number of dimensions of the universe (infinite — which is to say the same thing as one), with the number of dimensions in their models (the more the better). The more dimensions a brain can resolve, the more subtle, more powerful it is. Which is why the microscientists say that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 of them — and I say infinite.
This is what separates the scientists from the philosophers: creative imagination and penetrating insight into the vastness of infinity. Of course, they will respond with a deep skepticism, which is healthy and natural but nonetheless indicative of their level of perception.
>>868335
Metaphysics is pretty useless. Its questions are largely unanswerable, and pointless in the first place (the problem of free will, for example, which only matters if you're a fucking theist).
dude strawman lmao
>>870654
You know those things are still considered just that, models. also no, a dimension in scientific literature is not a mental category.
When people talk about their deep levels of perception I am reminded of this story:
Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"
Plato nodded.
"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."
Some examples of modern philosophy in case anyone is doubting its utility.
http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=jiws
>>870676
>also no, a dimension in scientific literature is not a mental category.
It's not defined as such, but the scientists have a limited understanding, so of course their definition would not be accurate.
>>870684
I can only hope you were joking
>>870701
I think it's weird how /his/ constantly complains about how the humanities and sciences shouldn't be at odds, and then proceeds to shit all over the sciences. Yes, of course they're not at odds, you just have no respect for and see no value in their work. Makes perfect sense.
>>870718
Cute.
>>870720
This,
Yes I know the type of sperg lords who take science as a buzzword for everything but they are usually weeded out after their first course in STEM, so it's not an accurate representation of people in the field. However, people in the humanities seem so disinterested about math, science and technology that dare to call it mere child's play compared to their work and completely miss the point when talking about this subjects.
>>870667
>(the problem of free will, for example, which only matters if you're a fucking theist).
Mechanicism makes it matter for non theists as well.
>>870727
Ive notice stem majors often do the same thing. Its mostly about feeling special.
How you can do a specialty without a general education is beyond me, however
>>870727
Who ever calls it child's play? The most I ever see said is that it is not at the same perceptive height as philosophy, that's it.
>>870740
Explain.
>>870762
Depends what you call anti-intellectualism. There are certainly scientists guilty of it. That said there have been many people who practice ideology as a profession and pass it off as humanities. But no one is allowed to call them on their bullshit
>>869137
To be fair, the sciences haven't brought objective facts either. They've brought things that are very likely true, but we'll never be fully certain of their objectivity. I just wish philosophically inclined people wouldn't use this fact as an excuse to disregard reality.
Philosophy: Long winded arguments over abstract ideas which will never create anything of substance.
Positivism: Ignoring metaphysical dilemmas for what is most real or tangible.
The positivist stance is justifiable, but good science should always be critical of itself.
>>870978
>positivism=science
Ironically, read a book.
>>870716
Holy fuck. I mean I have nothing against feminism, even the modern Third Wave version, but godDAMN is that some redundant, ass-pulled bullshit.
No wonder "muh womens studies" is seem as an insult.
>>871253
>positivism
pos·i·tiv·ism
ˈpäzətivˌizəm/
noun
Philosophy
noun: positivism
1.
a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.
a humanistic religious system founded on this.
another term for logical positivism.
2.
the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.
>>869137
>he asks somebody objective fact
>he replies he does not know what is a objective fact
retard alert.
Scientists are often genuinely terrible people despite their intellect. There's a really thin line between philosophy and science but they'll never admit it despite the logarithmic process of the scientific method. Many are too proud or too scared to accept the idea that science can't solve all of our issues. Most scientists ironically don't understand the dynamics of opinion and merely use axiom to get themselves through the day.
>>871847
>A philosophical position that uses science IS science
Undergrads are fucking dumb.
>>871860
Asking questions they are unable to define is a classic blunder of half-educated sciencefags.
Another blunder is pretending that anything outside of the formal sciences can be objective.
>>870978
Positivism is a utilitarian philosophy.
>>873207
Why on earth do you think that. You're clearly not talking about logical positivism.
>>871993
>this entire post
>>873221
It attributes meaningfulness only to things which are logically justifiable, and everything else is meaningless, i.e. useless and not worth being concerned with. It's a philosophy in that it places value on something (logically justifiable things) over another thing (things that cannot be logically justified).
>>868353
He probably just got fired from McD because he was harassing customers.
>>871993
>Scientists are often genuinely terrible
>There's a really thin line between philosophy and science
>Most scientists ironically don't understand the dynamics of opinion and merely use axiom to get themselves through the day.
>>868335
Metaphysics IS useless, true or not
>>876051
Define usefulness in terms that aren't metaphysical.
>>876072
Define metaphysical.
>>870740
>Mechanism (philosophy), a theory that all natural phenomena can be explained by physical causes.
How does this make free will a problem for non-theists?
>>872847
If you don't define your terms then how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Go talk to yourself if that's all you want.
>>876076
An abstraction of the world around us with the goal of explaining how, or why it ultimately works, in a way that is distinct from empiricism.
Saying metaphysics is useless is a metaphysical statement. There is no gauge of measurement other than the assigned value of usefulness. As an assertive statement, it's self contradictory.
>>876103
>distinct from empiricism.
Define this term.
>>876110
I really can't in a satisfying way. The only reason I put a definition to metaphysics was to elaborate on my intent, which was to show how silly of a statement anon was making.
That's the catch all with metaphysics, I think. Since it deals with the abstract, and because I consider all of our thoughts to be abstractions, there's no escape from it. Though I could just be ignorant to some better reasoning behind the distinction between the two.
Would you care to make a point here?
>>876123
Not that anon. But regarding the rejection of metaphysical claims as metaphysical claims unto themselves to be patently absurd. It's on the same level of christfags claiming atheism is a religion.
>>876126
Essentially what I was going to get to, yeah. If you define metaphysics as so broad a term, it ceases to have a separate definition.
