How does scientism not lead to existential depression?
>>7525675
Because you have your reddit friends there by your side to cheer you up.
>>7525683
/thread
>>7525675
Because you're always grinding through some online RPG.
Has anyone seen her vlog? It's pretty boring.
>>7525675
Awe, Wonder, Humility, to name just a few
>>7525675
everything eventually leads to existential depression if you happen to be predisposed to it.
>>7525675
Because not everybody needs a philosophical opiate because they're scared of the dark.
You don't have enough time to be depressed when you're constantly getting stoned, browsing reddit, and pretending that you love math.
>>7525675
Why does Christianity not lead a "true believe"r to existential depression?
Apply the answer to scientism.
>>7525781
There was a saint that cried until his eyes rotted, so I wouldn't go around assuming it doesn't.
>>7525781
Christianity isn't that comforting if you take it seriously.
>>7525675
Once you reach an existential crisis you're free
>>7525710
they are so full of shit about this though. literally the only time they give a shit about humility is when they're trying to prove that they're more humble than the religious, since they know more about the insignificance of human existence or some shit like that
>>7525796
I'd disagree. Christianity is comfy as fuck. You get to inhabit a spirit-filled world where you are mystically connected to billions of people, and also to the dead. It's very comforting.
Unless you're one of those totally un-spiritual, mystically dead Protestants, of course.
>Christposters outright admitting they only choose to believe in god out of fear
Top kek
>>7525675
because in scientism, there is
-no perfect consensus on anything, not even in pure math [which logic to choose, what field is more important]
-the research is geared towards what scientist like and avoids what scientist dislike [say if you want to do research on perpetual movement, you cannot]
-science is hardly communicable [most people do not care, the few people who care cannot into science, and then the few who remain always fight on what model is right and what model is wrong]
-scientist and general population rely on faith towards other scientists who claim that such or such part of such or such model is ''verified'' in their laboratory
-then scientists say ''if we can claim that it hold a few times in our laboratory, then it hold everywhere, every time]
-there is no consensus on how to rank models/theories
which means that there is no consensus on what is true [in positing that science gives what is true]
-plenty of scientists say that predictions matter, but scientists cannot say why why predictions matter.
[and predictions are always flawed by their proper essence: to stem from an inductive process over initial abstractions[concepts] which are generalized through space and time]
they say that this question is for ''philosophers'' [which they despise, because philosophy does not give ''computers, cars, more pleasures, less pains''.
why do scientists get up in the morning ? nobody knows
why must we finance their activities ? nobody knows
yet scientists do not hesitate to ask for money again and again.
to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.
-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.
-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as you said: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.
-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.
-and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters'', there is no answer again.
>>7526441
the conclusion is that:
-science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] have clearly failed.
at best, the rationalist falls back, from his faith in the concept of objectivity, on the faith in the concept of ''inter-subjectivity'' which is roughly the faith in the concept of ''objective criterion to rank personal choices, once that a person wishes to solve some problem''
-even without applications, pure predictions are nothing but a concept and having faith in it shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
=> thanks scientists for making humanity better hedonists.
any rationalist doctrine is based on the faith in the imagination [meaning induction, connecting abstractions between them] which would produce concepts, abstractions, fantasies and some of them connect back, according to the rationalist, to the empirical world.
>the question is then what deliriums connect back to the empirical world.
any rationalist doctrine which is not solipsism also refute solipsism [which is a rationalist doctrine, since it stems from the imagination of a self, and a self more alive than something else, after taking the imagination seriously] which also brings problems since there is the question of faith in speeches by ''other humans''.
solipsism is not destroyed by solipsism nor any other rationalist doctrines since the notion of refutation of a rationalist doctrine is itself an abstraction.
the sole question of interest is why do you take your imagination seriously, knowing that, since you have so much faith in induction through space and time, people have been doing it for millenia and still have no clue on how to connect back their speculation/abstraction/delirium/fantasy back to empirical events, nor do they even know why they want to take seriously their speculation.
>>7525675
Because life is broad.
>>7525796
No, it's completely the other way around. Statistically speaking, becoming religious in general is one of the most effective ways to increasing one's happiness and Christianity, when taken to either its healthy or unhealthy extremes, will often provide benefits to the believer.
I don't know what you mean by ' taken seriously', though. I assume you believe being a serious Christian means you're a bigot, have a pathological self hatred, and are constantly terrified of anything which will send you to Hell. But for those kinds of people, their Religion is usually the only comfort they have.
>>7525675
"Scientism" types would rather be right than happy. That's part of being a good person I guess. But hey have fun with the whole reality-denial-intellectual-suicide-hedonist bullshit. I'm sure you're all very useful family
