daily reminder that the analytics are the worst people around.
>>8056096
Yeah I totally get where that guy's coming from. Russell seems like he hates everything and just wants to come up with a "rational" reason to make people uncomfortable.
>>8056106
Analytics in essence. Corruption of the mind.
>>8056096
>assigning arbitrary values of "good" and "evil" to human actions
There's absolutely nothing wrong with hating other people.
>>8056177
>arbitrary values
*tips edged fedora
the author doesn't even judge him on it, just call him to own it and stop pretending not to hate.
Analytic philosophy is the ressentiment of the autists.
>>8056096
Semiotic predialectic theory and capitalist nationalism
In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of neoconceptual sexuality. Any number of narratives concerning the meaninglessness, and eventually the defining characteristic, of capitalist society exist. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of constructivism to modify narrativity.
If one examines capitalist nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructivism or conclude that language is used to exploit the underprivileged. Debord uses the term ‘pretextual deconstruction’ to denote the difference between sexual identity and class. In a sense, several narratives concerning the neotextual paradigm of context may be revealed.
The without/within distinction prevalent in Gaiman’s Stardust is also evident in Neverwhere, although in a more dialectic sense. It could be said that capitalist nationalism implies that the media is capable of intention.
Baudrillard promotes the use of the neotextual paradigm of context to deconstruct class divisions. In a sense, many desublimations concerning the role of the participant as writer exist.
Lyotard’s analysis of constructivism states that sexual identity has intrinsic meaning. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a capitalist nationalism that includes consciousness as a whole.
>>8056199
Another accurate assessment. Thank you for you contribution.
The further away from the internet you get the clearer it becomes. In effect internet is largely their turf so the general behaviour of the PhD AMA faggot the other day is a prototype that is repeatedly manifested.
In this they are closer to their vision of perfection - cloning (reproducibility, static-ness) than they realise. They achieve this in large by psychic brute force that completely ignores any 'invalid input' that jeopardises the system of thought they're pushing - like how in OP pic related Russell is unable to integrate and account for his pathetic hate for things outside of his system.
They're pathetic 'system thinkers', the type of people that these day will say that the brain is like a computer with all seriousness, not realising that they're speaking only of their own state - and you just want to fucking cry for them and choke them at the same time.
>>8056279
“I distrust all systematicians. The will to a system betrays a lack of honesty.” -Freddy
>>8056205
Foucault is thrash.
>>8056288
How perfectly this quote again ties into the main point Lawrence had to make about Russell.
Prizing rigor above utility is the fundamental flaw of logocentricity.
>>8056330
At least D. H. Lawrence saying this makes it tangentially related to /lit/
>>8056279
why isn't the brain like a computer? it seems to me that way :/
>>8056348
It's meta-/lit/. I hope that the admins continue to be sympathetic to our cause and not remove threads like these.
>>8056205
how did you write so much without actually saying anything
>>8056330
Damn, he's not pulling any punches.
>>8056377
There's no binary bag of data to a thought form. We cannot look into a thought form and 'discover' a more true representation of it. We only create (invent, conjure) other thoughts (models) of it. Computers are truly idiotic devices when you compare them to this process.
>>8056400
Russell planned to commit suicide after reading it.
>>8056330
Is it just me or does it feel like Lawrence took pleasure in writing this?
>>8056502
You wouldn't be the first to associate truth with pleasure.
>>8056542
Welcome to the movement.
Analytics should be redirected to continue to rape their own being in a more appropriate enviroment >>>>lesswrong.com
Russell wouldn't kowtow to Lawrence's mystical mumbo jumbo about the Infinite, the Absolute, and 'blood-consciousness' (lol), so Lawrence rage quit the relationship.
>>8056418
I believe I am sympathetic to your point, I really am, but I can't understand for the life of me what you are talking about. Could you please be a little more clear? Or use an example? What's a "binary bag of data"?
Why are analytics such cowards? They're afraid to assert anything without putting in their 'safe' phrases like "it seems that..." or "prima facie", etc. They will probably say that it's a matter of being humble about their beliefs but this is clearly not true: analytics are not humble about anything, and this is clear from their rabid hatred of anyone who has commitments that are incommensurable with the beliefs that they're too afraid to even admit they're certain about.
>>8056446
lol what a pussty
>>8056693
Not him, but just think about what it means to liken the brain to a human technology. It's utterly reductive and operational. My professor put it more eloquently but when you consider it, it doesn't make any sense.
I think you guys are going pretty overboard on this analytic hate thing and I can't help but wonder why.
Just take what from them what helps and leave what doesn't.
>>8056693
Binary bag of data is what's underlying any technology that you interact with. The sum of everything you see on the screen can be broken down to a long string ("sentence") of 0s and 1s which are stored and moved around on a group of devices made for that express purpose. These are 'atomic' parts of computer hardware and software that cannot be broken down any further. There's nothing analogous to this in the human (or any other) organism. You cannot take a thought and say, this part of the thought, about the refridgerator, is stored in this place in this way. There are no cycles of processing of information from bottom (0s and 1s) to a more human friendly form (say a png of Stirner) going on in the brain. We simple conjure up Stirner any time we wish, and he's there with us. Nobody knows how this works and all theories about it pathetic in that particular analytic pathectiness - if we only threw more brute intelligence we'd come up with a sufficient model.
>>8056899
yeah, it's probably like blood-consciousness or something, man.
>>8056899
Ok, that makes more sense to me. Thank you. I guess I've got to work on catching up on my comp sci terminology.
>>8056807
We don't sarcastically disrespect the body like that bud, not in this thread.
>>8056949
What are you talking about?
>>8056899
You are partially correct, it's nothing like a computer, but your memory is in your brain, it's not just conjuring something.
So you're telling me I should endorse the 'views' (closer to neuroses) of the nutjob in that image? No thanks. Look, I don't agree with Russell on everything (perhaps not most things), but to call the mere practice of logic 'mental blood-lust' is utterly beyond the pail, and far worse than anything a positivistic philistine like Stephen Hawking might say about philosophy or literature.
4/10. I knew this was bait, but nonetheless I felt compelled to reply.
>>8056377
Look into Dreyfus' book What Computers Can't Do. It has a more recent update, What Computers Still Can't Do. He's a (famous-y) Heideggerian scholar who critiques AI researchers' assumptions that synthetic consciousness can arise from data sets and protocols, because it lacks fundamental understanding of minds we've hitherto encountered, or at least our best guesses at an understanding of them based on current philosophy.
Basically the GOFAI people, and now the algorithmic and neural net people who are doing the same shit in a different box, are incapable of simulating "embeddedness," intentionality, and higher-order symbolic manipulation and the existence of "symbolic orders" (or some other wiggly-ass term like that) as necessary bases for thought.
I'm not aware of any really good answers from the mechanistic people, who could theoretically say
>well, even if it's greater than the sum of its parts, and there are a LOT of parts and many of them are counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive, and something about that makes thought necessary, that doesn't mean we can't understand the brain computationally!
But it'd be a loooooong way off. And the vast majority of AI people are still weirdly naive Lockean behavioralists or just blindly optimistic autismos who think of the brain as an especially complex set of binary switches like it's a microchip.
The long-and-short is:
"Brains are weird"
and
"Pretty much the past hundred straight years of philosophical and psychosocial investigation has been hammering at the idea, over and over again, that human consciousness and willful action is founded in crazy-ass structural-functional symbolic orders!!!! Language is really confusing and relative and what even is a word, words don't click into real epiphenomenal things in the real world! We can't access the noumenon!!! AHHHHHHHH I'M FREAKING OUT" over and over again, and AI people are just like
"If I put enough diodes on it, it'll be a people, and then I can just multiply the diodes to get a SUPER people, and task it with cleaning my car :^)"
It's why the analytics didn't like late Wittgenstein and Wittgenstein didn't like the analytics.
>>8056899
its a bit of a strawman to say that people who define consciousness as an emergent rather than supranatural phenomenon insist that it is exactly like a man-made computer. The argument at its most basic is that the same banal and brutish principles found in nature pervade even our most sacred spaces, including the human conscience. Whether the brain is merely a complex compiler of information, or does something totally foreign with information, is yet to be known.
>>8056982
Yeah and then you get another analytic like Searle who says wait for biochemistry and neuroscience to understand consciousness before you try to replicate it.
People in AI now are not doing useless work. The languages they are working on will become useful once more properties of consciousness are understood.
>>8056978
Was subtly trolling with the word 'conjure', but the point is that memories are not 'retrieved' as they are from a hard drive.
finally, the leftist reaction this board has been waiting for. thank you for this thread
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513696/deep-learning/
>>8057054
I don't really see how endorsement of irrationalist shaming of pacifism is leftist at all, but alright. You know, just because a famous poet says something doesn't mean you have to agree. I put this little coniption on par with Pound's rambling Italian broadcasts about the Jewry.
>>8056982
Excellent contribution. Thank you.
It's also interesting that Wittgenstein is the best of the analytics, and using the analytic method he disproved analytic philosophy as something worth pursuing. The fact that it's still practiced shows how inhumane in a way it is, because others that don't have the brute intelligence or time of Wittgenstein to reach the same conclusions and are in effect condemned to roam the lower corridors only catching glimpses of the more 'correct' floors above them. It's fundamentally an ableist and fascist mode of thinking.
>>8056718
>Why are analytics such cowards?
This is a joke, right? Continentals are the very embodiment of cowardice -- too scared to admit they have no actual ideas, so they wrap their trivialities in baroque flowery nonsense. It's disgraceful and sickening.
>>8057183
>It's also interesting that Wittgenstein is the best of the analytics
WHOOP, WHOOP! PSEUD DETECTED!
>>8057054
There's nothing "leftist" about spewing out a bunch of irrational nonsense, anon. Get a grip.
>>8057079
How can you miss the point of Lawrence's letter so badly - he explicitly says that Russell's pacifism is a put on, that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing and that lie is what Lawrence is attacking - not 'true' pacifism. Russell reportedly agreed so much with Lawrence's 'reading' of him that he wanted to kill himself for up to a couple of months after the event.
>>8056330
Holy shit. This isn't banter. This is the destruction of a man by someone who knew him personally and was on his level intellectually. I completely believe that a vicious weakling like Russell would contemplate suicide after reading this.
Well, let's see. Lawrence was a talentless hack, and Russell was GOAT. Enough said.
>>8057234
Yeah, because only children are rational.
Go back to /b/ and kill yourself ASAP - you epic fucking retard.
>>8057243
You're the retard in your use of the word 'irrational' to describe a complex situation you can't begin to understand. And now you follow with this even more stupefying post. Again please find a different thread, adults are talking here.
>>8057228
I understand what Lawrence is saying; I just think it's ridiculous. And what is even more ridiculous is that people are flocking to it as a work of creative genius which disproves this bogeyman of 'Analytic philosophy.' Lawrence's poems spring from a certain amount of creative genius, but not this character assassination which is ironically bloodthirsty. Also, who is 'reporting' Russell's reaction? The bozos in this thread?
>>8057253
Holy fuck. You have no idea at all what you are talking about, do you?
>>8056905
he also cucked other men
>>8057258
Maybe you just don't understand what is being talked about here? Has a wild thought like that occurred to you?
Russell' reaction is described in more detail in the same biography of Russell that that letter was taken from. He did schedule to kill himself in summer according to this biography.
>I would rather have the German soldiers with their rapine and cruelty, than you with your words of goodness.
>If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I'd go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the "Hallelujah Chorus"
>Rather than a republic, Lawrence called for an absolute Dictator and equivalent Dictatrix to lord over the lower peoples.
Bravo, great pacifist leftist thinker. Give me a fucking break.
>>8057267
You on the other hand have said many important things:
>this is irrational
>only children are rational
>calls to kys
>vague questioning
At least learn to form a question if you have a problem..
>>8056177
>assigning the arbitrary vaule of 'nothing wrong' to hating people.
Because WWI was such a FANTASTIC idea.
Moron.
>>8057284
Do you have Down Syndrome or something? Jesus fucking Christ.
>>8057275
Indeed a wild thought like that has occurred to me. I do not roundly reject it, but I do roundly reject that you know what you're talking about better than I do. Under no circumstances is a letter like Lawrence's acceptable, particularly when dealing with someone like Russell. As far as I can tell, Russell hurty nobody with his pacificism, regardless of its authenticity--yet Lawrence is acting like he's a mass murderer, and indeed a worse mass murderer than the war machines involved in WWI. And again, it's fine if Lawrence believes these crazy things. He's entitled to that, and he has his better points which at least partially make up for this kind of craziness. But what isn't fine is the idolization of this craziness as the answer to the ills of the 'modern world' (whatever you people take that to mean).
>>8057302
Nah Russell somehow reminds me of the very most irritating people I know. I think Lawrence was just sick of his shenanigans and smugness and wanted to tell him off. You're reading too much into what is just an over the top personal insult.
>>8057298
>this is irrational
>only children are rational
>calls to kys
>vague questioning
>down syndrome insult
>invoke lord's name in vain
Why don't you go scuttle along now?
>>8057302
Rustle HURT nobody* rather, although I suspect you won't be paying very close attention to what I write.
By the way, what evidence is there that Russell contemplated suicide BECAUSE of Lawrence's hate mail? and might it not be that he was so perturbed merely because of a sensitive personality?
>>8057306
Well then why even bring it up? If you admit this is just a slightly unhinged person throwing a (remarkably ineloquent, given the quality of his writing) shitfit, that is all I meant to say in the first place. Not something to put forward as impressive in any way.
>>8057306
Please refrain from offering opinions as basic as these. Thank you.
Lawrence was a truly great man, he might've saved Russell's soul. A brother worth having, and few of us in this thread will understand. Analytic filth is creeping in though.
>>8057315
Lawrence was essentially Larry Flynt with tuberculosis. A pornographer and shit prose stylist, lashing out irrationally at his betters.
>>8057183
Oh ok. You actually don't know what analytic philosophy is.
You've been spooked my good fuckboi
>>8056418
Thoughts appear this way as an end state. You are comparing the atomic constitution of a system on the one hand (binary data) and the whole orchestration on the other ("thought form") for all we can tell, the mind is a mechanical function.
It is not like a computer in many senses, I agree, but it has some basic logical structure. Or it at least appears that way.
Is this a one-off 4cahn thing, or do many continentals admire this proto-fascist's ideas?
>>8056330
>this from the would be fascist
lol
>>8057335
No this is some dude having his moment. I mean it's a "time for our daily x".
>>8057335
>fascism is bad
>>>>Tumblr
>>8057354
>muh edgy contrarianism
the world rejected you first, you aren't fooling anyone
>>8057333
You missed the point. It's a human invention in the operation of a machine to have these seperate stages of the system. It does not mean it applies to how we work, for all we know all we have is the orchestra.
>organisms are mechanical
you're one of the confused eggs
i hope 'woke' among here, who are down with the movement, can see the crazyness at display here and the reach of the analytic mindset
>>8057335
This has nothing to do with Lawrence really.
This is an analytic hate general.
>>8057374
Okay, and the best way you have of doing that is by using hate mail from a proto-fascist. Got it.
You can be a misanthrope and still believe WWI was fucking retarded.
>>8057374
Let's cut the horseshit. You are a fascist, and the purpose of this thread is to promote fascism.
Why don't you own it.
>>8057382
Nice try at severe simplification and/or reductionism there bu-ddy. Maybe this thread is not for you.
>>8056330
>Let us becomes strangers again, I think it better.
>tfwyktf
>>8057183
>It's fundamentally an ableist and fascist mode of thinking.
There is nothing wrong with either of these things.
Nothing at all.
Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.
Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.
It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.
Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].
Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.
>>8057270
yeah he is a good illustration of a liberal-libertarian hedonist
>>8056177
Moral nihilism, everyone
>>8057565
>Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
wew lad
I don't even want to know what you have to say about fictional literature
>>8056205
the sad thing is that you could probably make a similar generator for analytic jargon
>>8057364
For all we know is quite small. But it looks more mechanical than mystical at this stage.
>>8057054
>Lawrence
>leftist
dumbest post on the board right now
>pining for a "leftist reaction"
>>8057565
>Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.
You have it backwards. Logic is the study of formal systems, and mathematics is the study of formal systems that specifically attempt to formalize notions of "quantity" (viz., the notions of succession and of part-whole relations).
>>8057280
>>If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I'd go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the "Hallelujah Chorus"
This is how I feel every time I have to take public transit
you can recognize that russell's atheism was correct without approving of his irrational hatred of the noumenous, and without denouncing the importance of religion as an important social tool and an aesthetic curiosity, while at the same time realizing he was, in his personal life, a duplicitous beta male and a cuckold who pontificated on the virtue of open relationships. people often act like a criticism against someone is all-encompassing. lawrence's letter to russell is spot on, it's also a criticism of the progressive "I Fucking Love Science" crowd we have today, as they are descended from russel.
>I believe myself that romantic love is the source of the most intense delights that life has to offer. In the relation of a man and woman who love each other with passion and imagination and tenderness, there is something of inestimable value, to be ignorant of which is a great misfortune to any human being.
-Bertrand Russell. He had 4 wives, 3 children. Got cucked by his wife.
>The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.
-Gengis Khan. Had thousands of wives, thousands of children. Nietzschean ubermensch.
>>8057615
>Most of the population doesn’t know the difference between reason and logic. Reason is not logic. Human beings do not think in a logical form. Logical forms are the way the computers are programmed. Human beings do not think logically.
>But people have this misconception that what thinking is. It's not. There is no thinking in logic. So what happens is the population does not develop the culture that promotes the kind of thinking, like the kind of thinking Socrates has in Plato's Dialogues, which is the actual form in which thinking actually takes place, is in the form of a dialogue.
>So we have destruction of that whole process, so that the population does not have confidence in their own thinking, and they're presented with this view that they're not logicians, they have not developed the power of logic and therefore they're not 'qualified' to think.
How did you find this godly bastion of light and reason? On this day special day and in this special thread?
>one analytic philosopher writes like an autistic fedora
>all analytics are autistic fedoras
/lit/ everyone
>>8057806
>implying analytics is not cancer
We haven't gotten around to the other ones yet you little impatient faggot.
>>8056096
>>8056106
>>8056158
>>8057671
>important social tool
>>>/pol/
OP = Nazi shithead
>>8058375
*tips*
>>8058375
ignorance of the importance of religion is going to be one of the largest reasons for Western society's fall from dominance
>>8058674
>the importance of religion
How is religion important?
>>8057598
You spooked motherfucker.
>>8058684
the same way monogamy and patriarchy are important
you can't have civilization if you don't have a populace that is breeding to replacement
>>8058732
By naming other important things you're only dodging the question.
>you can't have civilization if you don't have a populace that is breeding to replacement
Monogamy is not a necessary condition for a populace that is "breeding to replacement". Polygamy works, too. Moreover monogamy is not necessarily linked, and need not to link, to religion. By dodging my initial question your answer raises a further, albeit similar in vein, question: How is a populace that is "breeding to replacement" important?
>>8058752
>How is a populace that is "breeding to replacement" important?
are you just pretending to be retarded or are you actually retarded
>>8058732
Polygamy only allowing multiple wives is much better for birthrates than slow-ass monogamy
>>8058758
Juvenile rhetoric. Does it ever work?
Your quasi-argument, thus far, is basically
>I value A, therefore A is important to me
Tautological though it is, you're not really making a case for yourself here.
>>8058761
I can't see that being stable in a society that doesn't have a high mortality rate for young males and but lower mortality for childless young women. At some point you get too many pissed-off single dudes causing trouble.
It makes sense if you have a lot of wars and dangerous occupations though.
>>8058361
Wow, Russell really was a slimy little bitch.
>Russell's adolescence was very lonely, and he often contemplated suicide. He remarked in his autobiography that his keenest interests were in religion and mathematics, and that only his wish to know more mathematics kept him from suicide.
I feel like this sometimes
>>8058773
learn how to read
it is not a moral value judgment, is the factual observation that you have to have citizens to have a civilization, and the west (europe, america) is currently importing its citizens because the current populace isn't breeding to replacement
japan isn't breeding above replacement and it's also not importing citizens either, which is why there won't be a japan soon
>>8058833
>which is why there won't be a japan soon
Japans overpopulated, like most of the world. A falling birth rate is a good thing. The fact that it's not importing people from around the world is the only reason there will be a japan 100 years from now while Europe may very well not exist.
>>8058833
But that has nothing to do with religion you cum-gobbling arschloch.
Let's take your lazy, weak-ass assertion and examine it once again:
>you can't have civilization if you don't have a populace that is breeding to replacement
This implies that for each member of the populace (s)he has to value the idea of "breeding to replace". Not just that, but s(he) must act on it, too, such that in his/her lifetime (s)he should give birth to at least one offspring. But this is bullshit and it is common knowledge that this is bullshit: not all members of the human race have produced an offspring and yet the civilization lives on. This holds true of the current civilization in its current phase and it would also hold for the civilization in its starting phase.
Additionally, just how many people establish a civilization? And again, just how is religion important you insufferable christfag?
> the west (europe, america) is currently importing its citizens because the current populace isn't breeding to replacement
So, basically, what you're saying is that you've corresponded with each and every person that was responsible for admitting refugees the entrance to EU/US and that among all the answers that you received there wasn't a single answer that wasn't "The chief motivation for importing refugees is breeding to replacement"? Did you fall on your head when you were a baby?
>>8058732
Why are those important? What is the spaciotemporal basis for the property of importance and what is the factor that grants said things importance as opposed to something else?
>>8057809
He's right you know, consciousness is a net negative for everyone involved.
>>8058926
Not him but,
>What is the spaciotemporal basis for the property of importance
The notion of importance is just a binary relation between the individual and a certain idea; the idea of which can be reduced to a certain mass of subatomic particles in his cranium.
>what is the factor that grants said things importance as opposed to something else
Well, seeing that he's a christfag that has yet to account for religion--Christianity.
>>8058910
learn to read
>christfag
oh so you are retarded
>>8059148
>christfag
repeating it won't make it true chucklehead. although amusing, your autism and inability to read doesn't belong on lit, this place doesn't need any more shitting up
>>8058929
This is essentially the split between being an analytic loser and a magical continental that dances with Gods.
That you're so depressed and lost that you don't see says a lot about the current atmosphere in the west. Your fedora trembles and scatters when it's said that we're a God-less people. Your rather manifest an utter nightmare of a world and be 'correct' then see if there's a better way. You've been born into a situation where nobody showed you otherwise, nobody showed you life has meaning and can be joyful. This is essentially again the sheer satanic power of the analytics.
>>8059133
Any westerner who doesn't see what Christianity has done for the west is the true retard, if you don't subscribe to it's beliefs anymore because you rather fit into current zeitgeist through secularism - which is essentially a product of Christianity.
You're essentially a person that shits on their father and mother, their father's and mother's and so on. What can be said of such a person. You're disturbed and lost and we as a society hope sense will come back to you and you will step out of you madness.
>>8058404
Cute ad-hom.
>>8059795
what the fuck are you talking about anon
tone down the wild accusations, you're just grasping at straws now
>>8059842
Try this for an experiment next time. Read what I wrote (starting from the beginning), and when you come upon something that you don't understand or agree with - form a question or a statement referencing the problem directly so that 'wild accusations' can be tamed down for you.
Or should I just assume you disagreed with my statement that Christianity is intrinsically woven into the fabric of Western Civ? I probably should because you do seem very retarded.
>>8059911
I know it's just the sound of rustled fedora's but replying doesn't hurt.
The atheists and the analytics, two retarded brothers, under one giant fedora.
>>8059896
He didn't do political philosophy, though. Just logic, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of language. So his personal beliefs about 'da jooz' are irrelevant.
>>8059911
your post is the rambling of a madman who thinks he knows the personal background of an anonymous person on the internet, but he doesn't, so he just makes a bunch of stuff up to appear smug. I know you think it sounded smart or cool, but there is nothing to respond to there
>>8059911
You are something of a retard, I assume.
>>8059926
>your post is the rambling of a madman
>who thinks he knows the personal background of an anonymous person on the internet
but you're not mad and you know my background?
just ask a fucking question you moron, what do you disagree with?
>>8059942
>but you're not mad and you know my background?
again, what the fuck are you talking about? when did I claim to know your background?
is english not your first language or do you just normally have trouble following conversations?
Dr. Stephen Wolfram
School of Natural Sciences
The Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, NJ 08540
Dear Wolfram:
1. It is not my opinion that the present organizational structure of science inhibits "complexity research" - I do not believe such an institution is necessary.
2. You say you want to create your own environment - but you will not be doing that: you will create (perhaps!) an environment that you might like to work in - but you will not be working in this environment - you will be administering it - and the administration environment is not what you seek - is it? You won't enjoy administrating people because you won’t succeed in it.
You don’t understand "ordinary people." To you they are "stupid fools" - so you will not tolerate them or treat their foibles with tolerance or patience - but will drive yourself wild (or they will drive you wild) trying to deal with them in an effective way.
Find a way to do your research with as little contact with non-technical people as possible, with one exception, fall madly in love! That is my advice, my friend.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Feynman
October 14, 1985
>>8059925
oh lord
in >>8059842
>what the fuck are you talking about anon
What I'm talking about is what I wrote! Which part do you disagree with??? Can you not process this simple request? What do you consider to be the wild accusations?
in >>8059926
>your post is the rambling of a madman
you know me
>who thinks he knows the personal background of an anonymous person on the internet,
but you're not a madman who knowing that i am madman. k
Just move on with this discussion man and ask or state a particular of what you see as problem in what I said. You write down a sentence. One sentence.
>>8059973
>oh lord
Your "lord" can't help you now, you limpwristed fuckboy.
>>8059973
Dude, put a glock in your mouth and blow your fucking brains out. You're too stupid to breathe. Just fucking end it, retard.
>>8059973
You're stepping on the same rake as did the guy before you: never argue with Christians.
Let it go. It's not worth it. Nothing will come out of it.
Cool thread. Impressive.
>>8056982
>"If I put enough diodes on it, it'll be a people, and then I can just multiply the diodes to get a SUPER people, and task it with cleaning my car :^)"
I need that on a t shirt or something
>>8059795
>dude respect rocks man our ancestors used rocks
kek kys desu
>>8057671
>atheism was correct
Oh my
>>8064076
>muh sky fairy
Oh my
>>8062281
>not respecting rocks
I see you don't live in God's heaven on earth. I'm sure it's very nice wherever you are though.
>>8064086
>muh nothing exploded
Oh my
>>8064097
>muh simplest being has omnibenevolence for some reason
Oh my
>>8064097
>if I don't know exactly what happened then everything falls apart
Chill bruh, we're working on it.
>>8056279
lol Russell bullied this faggot to tears from beyond the grave. Analytic thinking is strictly opposite to the delusions of liberal arts narcissists hence their defensive herd attitudes towards things they don't understand.
>>8064143
>muh not recognising the intrinsic connections and roots of science in occultism
>>8064152
>muh haven't developed that party of the fantasy yet
Oh my
>>8057228
what the fuck has that got to do with leftism
>>8065594
>muh sky leprechaun
Oh my
>>8065590
>science is """"rooted"""" in """"occultism"""" so that means medicine doesn't work and planes don't fly and the sky jew doesn't want you to masturbate or work on sunday
Oh my
>>8066016
>muh still not getting that God's within science, not that science doesn't work
Oh my
>>8066006
>muh claiming to be logical yet not grokking Pascal's wager bcuz edgy faggottness runs deep
>>8066038
>smuggling muh personal deity into places he doesn't belong because of your personal narcissism and need for meaning
Oh my
>>8066049
>muh not getting that many accomplished scientists are theists and don't see the two to be incompatible
Oh my, you've been meme'd
>>8066047
>thinking Pascal's wager is a product of honest, rigorous thought and not just a desperate apologetic maneuver attempting to justify muh sky fairy
>image.jpg
Oh my
Why don't the atheists contain themselves to reddit? Are the ones here the evangelical atheists?
>>8066056
>Christians accomplished admirable things so that means muh sky fairy exists
>cavemen made fire so banging the side of a cave wall with sticks and making hooting chimp noises in an attempt to summon the cave god is appropriate for modern humans
Oh my
>>8066047
>the only options are Christfaggotry and atheism
Why are Christcucks so stupid?
>>8066069
>muh i won more nobel prizes in physics than william phillips therefore i can say that religion is invalidated by science
Oh my, you're severly broken
>>8066103
>nobel prizes prove muh sky jew
>the Greeks thought the world was flat so we should do that too because they did other stuff that was great!
Y I K E S
>>8066115
>science disproves the absolute
Oh my, it's babby hour
>>8066142
>I need to believe in muh absolute because my fragile ego can't handle an indifferent universe
W O W
>>8066183
>muh equating absence of evidence with evidence for absence
Oh my, is this not the year of our Lord 2016?
>>8066183
>knowing a little science may lead one to atheism, but knowing more science will lead one to religion - Francis Bacon
So how much science did you do in the past week anyway?
Help lit
Do I major in philosophy or cultural studies (critical theory)
>>8066957
Surely you're jesting? Philosophy.
>>8066957
Just get a minimum wage job and read.
>>8066957
Just go on welfare and read, work is for suckers.
https://youtu.be/us3Ke1tF9dU
>>8066957
>major in cultural studies (critical theory)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAH
why do people do this with their lives
>>8071625
They think it sets them apart and makes them speachul.
>>8071596
https://youtu.be/tQEtCxToHR8
Truly and honestly analytic philosophy is: reddit atheists,the philosophy.
lucky for us /lit/ remains a proud Catholic board
>>8071596
Hilarious. I think this comment sums it up rather well:
"Nah, the distinction is quite easy: If it seems like the author has at least attempted to reason in a clear and rigorous fashion, with a strong foundation of logic, and an understanding of and appreciation for empirical methods, then it's analytic. If it's a jumbled mess of deliberately obtuse pretension, chasing after form over content with an endless stream of increasingly tortured analogies, endless regurgitation of the same outdated ideas, and a clear disdain of any grounding or appeal to reality, in favour of pseudo-mysticism and esoteric nonsense, then it's continental."
>>8071669
That discounts most of /lit/'s favourite philosophers then. Foucault, Žižek, etc.
>>8071669
> There is an old joke that goes "the analytic philosopher will accuse the continental of being insufficiently clear, while the continental philosopher accuses the analytic of being insufficiently."
Checkmate atheists.
>>8056899
The brain is just a possible set of contingent "if a then b" sentences. We just haven't figured out the system to translate neutron pathways into possible thoughts yet. It's the hard problem of consciousness for a reason. You're just making ontological assumptions that are no more valid than a neurologist's.
>>8071669
pic related
I don't understand this thread. Wasn't continental philosophy supposed to be leftist drivel in the eyes of the analytic? Now it's fascist drivel.
And why the "theological discussion"? It's not like atheists are on one side and theist on the other, the vast majority of continental philosophers are atheist as well.
>>8058910
(S)he his/her
Stop this bullshit it's jarring and disrupts the flow
>>8058910
>(S)he would give birth
Dear Jesus you're a nut
>>8071707
It's almost like these bland generalizations are dank maymays and not serious considerations!
>>8071742
so what's the purpose of the thread
>>8071737
Agreed. The default sex of /lit/ is female.
>>8071746
To discuss the relationship between D.H. Lawrence and Bertrand Russell. Clearly the thread has failed.
>>8071746
To draw a line in the sand
>>8071748
Fine, write how you want. Just choose one and sick to it
>>8058361
BEADY
>>8058674
>people should believe in god!
>but not because religion has any intrinsic value, I just need them to shut up and obey!
>>8071707
The analytic/continental distinction has nothing to do with left vs right politically.
In fact, most continental 'philosophers' don't even write clearly enough to lay out a coherent political orientation.
In contrast, there is analytic political philosophy covering ever possible political position -- from Marxism (G.A. Cohen) to right-libertarianism (R. Nozick) to everything in between and beyond.
>>8071855
*tips fedora
with or without God or religion is a positive force. you've been too meme'd by muh via moderna to see that
>>8057615
The essay Lawrence was referring to is Russell's "The Danger to Civilization".
>>8073481
Thanks anon! Finally something useful came out of this thread.
>>8073502
It’s essentially an article calling for peace mid-way through WW1, with some good insights into WW1 and particularly the psychological effects of this new type of post-industrial warfare. Although this article was written in 1916 so it’s not early on that realisation, Russell might be just riding general opinions/realisations of intelligentsia at the time. He’s concerned that WW1 will break Europe’s spirit (of progress) - “Without progress, we could not even stand still” - and that things will be forgotten much like they were when Roman Empire eventually collapsed.
“The Romans spread throughout their empire what had been created by the Jews in religion, by the Greek in art and science; on this foundation, after a long interval of barbarism, the Italians, the French, the English and the Germans built the world in which we have hitherto lived.”
It’s interesting that he claims that people got lazy in 18th and 19th centuries taking the continual progress of Western Civ for granted, and not investing enough time in the things that made progress. It sounds like any other political-ideological claim that the people are not doing their part in keeping it alive.
Overall Lawrence, knowing Russell’s character a bit better than the general public, “knows” that Russell doesn’t mean any of it - “it isn’t in the least true that you, your basic self, want ultimate peace.” and “It is the falsity I can’t bear”.
So a puff piece by Russell to show what a good guy he is, attacked by his bud Lawrence who can see through his shit. Overall A+ exchange. Would shitpost about again.
Choice autism feeds:
“[…] the danger of traditionalism is very great; indeed it has only been averted by the continual triumph of the men of science.”
“It is only a small stock of very unusual energy that makes mental progress; and that small stock if being wasted on the battlefield.”
>>8071867
You do realise that most continentals think very little of politics? With or without deep philosophy it's easy to see how retarded it is, look at /pol/.
>>8073590
Thanks for the summary. It still feels weird though, I can understand Russell not being exactly a saint, but isn't it far-fetched to claim that he did not want the war to end? I mean one could accuse Christians of being anti-life and desiring the peace of Nothingness or whatever, but nobody would claim that they want endless war.
>>8073616
For most people it would be a big claim to make, but Lawrence seems a bit different. He had all the respect of Russell in assessing people's psychology and is borderline mystic in that regard (or a kook if you don't buy into that). I think there's something to Lawrence's claims, especially in judging how Russell himself received them - wanted to suicide.
There are people out there who can say to you within minutes of meeting you deep psychological things you might be struggling with, and what Lawrence says is a pretty mundane insight compared to Freud for example. So I wouldn't be surprised if Lawrence's assessment is true, having been an intimate friend of Russell's.
>>8073616
I think the other thing to point out that is not really obvious is that the letter was highly personal. I think Lawrence was only attacking Russell this hard to break him out of his shell - in effecting attacking his psychological armor. Lawrence still saw Russell as a friend after writing this letter and was continuing planning projects they were meant to work on. See pic >>8057315
