Analyticals are insane

faculty consists of

The following stories are about these two "rabid analyticals."

Other urls found in this thread:

this isnt /r/badphilosophy, fuck off

I thought continentals where supposed to autistically screech "spook" every time someone mentioned race?




What time is it, continental philosophers?

[image of clock face with every hand pointing to write 5000 pages of literal schizophrenic nonsense and pretend it's as valid as science]


dumb anglos


dude… you… wut?

>The oral exam took one and a half hours (longest oral exam in my life – some irrelevant course this is!) mostly spent by him showing me his superiority, making sure to make me feel like shit at every turn


what a fucking dick

daily reminder that academia attracts and fosters shit people and that anti-intellectualism has a point

oh boi
dude wut
(guy can't into reading comprehension and he's teaching us writing)


Why would it make it spam? Stop using retarded spam filters.

the rest of the emails go like (not mentioning their contents):
(No matter how infuriating this dick is, this process made me and makes me still kek hard.)


[email protected]/* */

continental philosophy is fucking nothing

continental philosophy is just gibberish and fantasy

continental philosophy made idpol which is literally the most stupid thing there is right now

due to continental philosophy's rejection of an objective reality instead preferring for an "interpretation" of reality it denies workers struggle and considers that womyns or a slightly minority struggle or a petit bourgeois "struggle" is an important as class struggle

continetal philosophy is nothing more than a tool for the upper class to undermied legitimate claims by the workers instead pushing they agenda of simply "Liberizations" of multiple kind and setting them as important while fooling the masses to actually change the system

fuck continental philosophy

rant off

When I'm done with this fucking semester I'm going to write a mail to him contrasting to things he said: if I tell him that I can't afford to fail classes and that I have to report this incident? How dare I threaten him!? When it comes to his fellow workers? Who gives a shit? Report them!


How very analytic of him.

Have a baby seal webm for your all your struggles.

not an argument

Objective reality has been debunked by science.

are you pic related?

u wot

3/10 fam.
If you were serious, you'd be the biggest dumbass

and here we go:
So basically I can't write according to my power level because he's not familiar with it. I'm left with the option of writing intros. How the fuck do you write 10 pages about Adorno, if he's not familiar with Marx and Hegel? Am I supposed to spend 9 pages (already impossible) of covering the historical development of those terms, then smuggle in 1 page of what I'm really trying to say because he's lazy?


source fam

how so?

Idealism /=/ All Continental Philosophy.
You're a retard. Define objective for me oh analytic one and how you know it exist as you see it, and how you can then draw objective conclusions from this reality.

no user, you are the niggest

What? Betcha OP'd be more pissed if he too was on the analytic camp himself.

Not what I'm saying at all. Philosophical concepts evolve.
If I say "the dialectic as used by Marx in Capital" for you to understand already presupposes some understanding of the dialectic prior to Marx. Since I'm trying to write about contemporary philosophy it would require me to give this douche an "intro to everything you didn't care to look at."

But it's besides the point. He said that only structure matters, and he took an offense at the essay not being analytical.

The 2 continental teachers are very chill. They tell you to read a book, and the exam is about presenting what you made of it on your own volition.

The other 3 analytics are OK, they are at least not raving retards, but they have these crazy specific (autistic even) "specializations," like "parallel universe theories" and abstract useless shit like that.

philosophy is extremely important and is linked to politics.
Dont be stupid


you are so fucking sality lmao

that teacher actually looks great

he knows what he is doing and he is trying to teach you but because you are trying to be so smug cannot realize it

do you mean objectivity?

if so

because it is not about "how do I see it"

truth transcends the ego

an example? natural sciences

no he wouldn't

because he would agree with the teachers idea that he should defines his terms instead of trying to make the teacher guess what he means

yes and not defining your terms is not following an analytical structure

so you failed there

Borg detected.

Why are teachers such assholes?
I'm not saying that there should be some shallow, inauthentic sense of "friendliness", but people should just act decently.

If you're going to be rough, do it with a pedagogic thinking

I don't know what this means.

Please define your terms.

t. your worst nightmare


That's part of the problem. Teaching to an audience is already dumbing down the message to a common denominator. Textbooks are the fucking worst. Give people the original texts, let them tackle it. They might not get everything, but they will get to that understanding by their own volition, instead of cramming .xml like data into their little heads for the exams that they can forget the next day.

see what conties do:
Intellectual emancipation is either your own or it is stultification:

So smart, and yet you can't use google


I was standing right next to him, he was pointing to my essay on his laptop, saying, "like that part, I'm not familiar with it" – I told him that I could explain it to him there and now.

"But that's not the point."
"The essay must be clear."

as a grad student in basic sci, every professor I've worked or talked with thinks much more along the lines of the left than the right.

scientists tend to think that there is no absolute truth. The only ones who claim otherwise are entertainers, as the media wants to present things as black and white whenever possible.

Yeah, people forget that anti-intellectualism is a reaction to intellectualism which is divorced from practical intelligence.

try again kiddo

I don't like them
also all those scientist on the left are analytical
none of them was a continental hippie

he is right though

writing a paper and then not following the parameters and later say that you can "fill the blanks" is not the point

the paper has to stand on its own

try avoiding that much of intertextuality next time

Are you the professor that OP's talking about?
You can be honest. This is an anonymous imageboard.

And analytical philosophy helped foster Nazism, the dumbest shit in existence

such thing does not exist, and if such concept exists, it cares about what aspects of truth and knowledge benefits humanity, so that truth and knowledge are going to work for humanity, and not be deducted by humanity

nah I barely know philosophy tbh

I don't even have a wikipedia level of philosophy

but thats even enough to trigger continentals kek

of course it exist

look at natural sciences for example

thousands of years of experiments to ptry to provide some proof for things that we as human don't even know it's importance

like higg's boson for example
it doesn't even needs to have a direct use for it to matter

Then you ought to know that the "vedantic philosophy" that Schrödinger talks about is Indian. It's hard to get much further from anglo-american philosophy or much closer to hippy shit than Indian philosophy.

Yes, just like any other Analytical

they all come from individual experience, and when the "humanity" takes a hold of these natural sciences, they mold them to fit their narrative


Just because a bunch of spiritually dry, unread, dumbass hipsters begin to inauthentically fuck around with what they think is "Indian thought" doesn't mean anything in regards to actual Indian thought.

mentioning indian philosphy and using one of its ideas as an analogy is not the same thing as being a continental fam

try reading this

yes this is exactly why continental is such a ullshit because hit is only what it does

it doesn't try to even have a consensus or something

it just give personal interpretations

naturals sciences on the other hand, doesn't mold reality, it is mold by it

literally nonsense

everybody know and its a fact that nazism as fueled by Nietzsche

and Nietzsche wasn't a analytic

also the pdf doesn't load for me

Top kek, how butthurt can you be?

Fell free to prove there is a pre-existing truth alien to human experience then

natural science is molded by the human that discovers it, and the "humanity" will mold this to its whim

gravity? It exist. Period.

It doesn't matter if we ever realize it.

it still is going to exist

this presupposes that only reality can exist with humans and that's a nonsense
reality can exist without humans

How do you know it exist


when you try to jump of a building but instead of falling you just start going up then you can be free to say that gravity doesn't exist

and how do you aware of said proofs?

only until there is human experience is that matter becomes truth or knowledge

because of science

as I said above, science doesn't mold reality, it is molded by it and humans are molded by science ergo humans does mold reality

also there are different kinds of knowledge

for example a priori and a posteriori knowledge

You don't even understand what science is.

science is human experience

top kek

look dummy, you literally have no fucking clue what you are talking about, first you claimed here "it is not about "how do I see it" " and now you are implying "ergo humans does mold reality" ?

the Human do not mold reality, the human can only experience reality, it is by experiencing this reality that he can do science

He can deduce more complicated subjects solely because he previously experienced reality and can relate it to that previous knowledge, a priori "knowledge" does not real, as they are inductions

"Humanity" is a concept, "Humanity" can modify whatever truth the individual discovers so that the truth satisfies the cause of Humanity

Maybe objects only confirm to scientist's theories in order to humor him and play with him. Or do you think the subject is really the only active one in this relationship, merely manipulating passive objects? Because that's a pretty arrogant attitude for a scientist. You have to allow for the obvious hypothesis that the world manipulates us as much if not more.

And who theorizes theoretical physics?

yes i do

so science is not simply any knowledge
but a form of knowledge that is universal

there is a difference between human expiereience as a whole. like history, with personal expierience like biases

but yet humanity is not a single entity there exist multiple opinions and differences but between all that there exist also consensus and this can be made with science for example

that's a typo
i meant to say that humans doesn't mold reality

you could have guessed by the context

and from where do you get that inductions are not knowledge?

it doesn't

scientist does not invent shit and say this is science buecause they so

they are hipotheisys taht are tested and proven

if it works it works it
if it doesn't work it doesn't work

it doesn't depends on scientist to say what is true or not without having any based on something whatsoever

they aren't continentals you know?

theoretical physicists duh

History is written by the victors, "History" is another example of "Humanity" changing the individual human experience to what it fits it best



and these consensus can only be realized if the "humanity" agrees to follow it

yes, hence why there is a disagreement between quantum and Newtonian's physics

from experience

You are a retard, keep thinking that you understand what continental means

M8, you might be a bit more continental then you would like to admit.

That's a very even-handed piece, actually. Did you write
to check whether the continental fans on this board would actually read it? Ah, but which side am I on? The answer is I won't tell you and I suggest everybody in the thread read this article about analyticals and continentals. It is decent, and we won't ever have a decent conversation about that on here.


1) fuck these people's lives up. spend hours on it always going to their bosses, don't take it too seriously, but never hold back. write bad reviews, make noise, be a thorn in their side and take more from them than they've from you. You'll regret it if you dont.


2) cut all ties with this institution, hire a lawyer, get all your money back. rise above anything they've done. spend 0 time explaining yourself beyond what is necessary to get your money back

yes, exactly haha

That Bill Nye quote is fine, and displaying it as something worth mocking just makes you look fucking edgy

He's obviously talking from theoretical scientific point, not in everyday sense. And from that point, yeah, that's incredibly delusional.

No, it wasn't. That canard has long been disposed of. His sister cooperated with the Nazis to promote his philosophy, but Nietzsche himself despised German nationalism, anti-semitism, and the Volksich movement which helped to lay the foundations for Nazism. Some Nazis appropriated a few terms from him, but Nazism was hardly "fueled by Nietzsche."

When a buffoon says something foolish, you attempt to correct him, despite knowing he's so ignorant he barely has any idea how wrong he is. The buffoon continues on spouting the same idiocies, regardless, but you at least feel satisfied he has proven himself a buffoon.

These kind of things work in specific cases for specific purpose and are not final. Its more of an exploration type of philosophy.

The fuck up comes once you try to make it work in real world against various conflicts in way of thing.


not the i go intowoods type of exploration
but lets see what happens when we do this type.

Almost as bad as Holla Forums calling everything jewish

don't be surprised, neoliberalism is a pretty retarded ideology, also it's messy politics, not pure economics

I think Dawkins is fine when you understand what he means with "being so open minded your brain falls out". If you've read some of his books, he does some philosophy himself, albeit shallow.

Nye is is jokester and his quote is a joke, can't really take that seriously.

Tyson and Krauss are just being ignorant on purpose. It probably strokes their ego when they discard the mother of all sciences and the foundation of all knowledge like that. Le black science man is the biggest hack of them all, whenever I see him on stage I wonder how he can actually do his real job. Either he has two personas and is a really different guy in the lab or he is some low level assistant that can talk big and pretends to be important.

this is false

if so there wouldn't exist palestinians whatsoever nor poeple would support them

or people supporting castro or mao or stalin or even hitler

they don't abolish each other
they complement

what are the real implications of communism?

Sounds shit man.

But then again, you study philosophy.

I really dislike professors that disregard other fields, the kind that has no interdisciplinary knowledge.
To cite an example, I once talked with a professor of political theory and asked him what field of political theorists did normative stuff like determining which political systems worked the best in case a new country would need a constitution. When he asked which new countries I meant, I said that we'd be facing a wave of newly founded nations in this and the next century because of the colonization of Mars. That resulted in immediate ridicule since he wasn't aware that there were efforts underway to build colonies.
Shouldn't political theorists be interested in this? I bet that prof has read a million pages about the colonization of burgerland and is sad that there isn't any land left to colonize.

The lifted quotes from Wikipedia don't contradict me. You haven't yet pointed to how Nazism was ideologically "fueled by Nietzsche." You wouldn't even know what this would entail yourself anyway since, as you said, you don't read philosophy.


Because he did contradict them in all others. Read what you copypaste, kek.

pointing an area doesn't mean that it is the ONLY area where nietszche influenced them or that he contradicted them in all other areas

continentals need to know how to read

I mentioned his sister's involvement with the Nazis in my first response. The vast majority of that copypaste is about that and searching for areas of vague compatibility. His "aristocratic radicalism" (which is still somewhat debated) is at odds with the Nazi's conception, thus the "here is one area…" assertion is extremely tendentious.

God are you stupid. You're mining quotes from Wiki still because you have no idea what you're talking about, and not only that but you don't have the slightest clue why you're wrong.

The Nazis ideologically were largely incompatible with Nietzsche's views. He wasn't at all a leftist, but he wasn't a Nazi either. You'd know if you'd actually read any of his books.

Considering you admitted that you don't read, you should probably figure out how to do that yourself.

read again

so his aristocratic radicalism do not contradict nazism view on women.

so it is not how you said that that his aristocratic radicalism is at odds with nazism.

it is the opposite

I read Zarathustra. And I don't know which parts doesn't fit with nazism.

I don't know from where you pulled this one

Not him, but for a continental you seem suspiciously unfamiliar with Derrida.

He's not ridiculing you because he lacks interdisciplinary knowledge you twat
Do you jack off to the hyperloop and SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS

This seems like a good place to post this

how bout god(s) lel

I'm aware of what it says. I'm judging from my own reading of his works, letters, and papers and books about him. One other problem with the quote is that "aristocratic radicalism" wasn't really about women in the first place. Yet another is that it's not a phrase Nietzsche used but a post-war scholarly construct (in an attempt to derive from his works a relative theoretical coherence). The Nazis couldn't have absorbed that by following from any overall philosophy of "aristocratic radicalism" which they had taken from Nietzsche because no such construct existed at the time.

You wouldn't know if it did or didn't.

It's not misreading, but the assertion that Nazism was "fueled by Nietzsche." That's just false. But I dislike Derrida anyway.

how about what?

he didn't believed in any god

nazism didn't believe in any god

how is that a contradiction?

then they called another name. maybe just nietszche's thoughts about women

which is certainly what it is
and it is certainly the same thing that nazis believed in
and they got it from him

this doesn't makes sense

it just means that I don't read much philosophy you dip

I read other things

how does that works?

which contemporary continental philosopher disregard derrida?

He's already a retard in my books.

The quote's already a conflation, if not outright wrong. Regardless, it doesn't say they "got it from him" but rather that the two "did not contradict each other" and the Nazis "received inspiration" from it. That isn't at all the same.

If all you've read is Zarathustra, there would be no way of knowing what Nietzsche was trying to accomplish with it in the context of his philosophy. Thus you have no way of knowing whether or not it would "fit with Nazism."

"Continental philosophy" isn't a single tradition but a diffuse group. It's not composed entirely of Derrida followers.

Fueled by the text he collected and presented, yes. If authorial intent is to be irrelevant.
I mention him because his "work" is emblematic of the problems in continental philosophy, as is the postmodern condition

Argument structure is the only thing that puts substance to the distinctions we make.

I can't seriously be the only one on this board with a mathematics background, can I?

Objective reality is anything the commune wants it to be user.

This is a basic postulate of Marxism…


There I summed up analytic philosophy for you


Blind leading the blind.

Nietzsche's views were never the bedrock of Nazism. It's true that some of his views were appropriated (this was true even when he was alive, though, mainly because of his sister's association with anti-Semites in addition to her marriage to one), but Nazism wasn't a direct creation from his views. "Fueled" implies a fundamental relation that isn't there.

I do, but it's not particularly relevant here.

The Bill Nye quote sounds like something a flat earther would say.


what is the difference with "fueled by" and "received inspiration"?

this is false.

thee is not way you can turn thus spoke zarathustra to say that it is a pro christian book

to do so it would be a complete misinterpretation

the same way there are ideas and concepts that are obvious to the text like for example the will to power

I think you are user

you are objectively false


There's the part where Wittgenstein himself ended up forsaking the basic positions of his Tractatus, i.e. logical atomism, but before doing that he had claimed to have solved all problems of philosophy. I don't hate the guy, mind you.

The punchline is, that this short-lived series of embarassments somehow became the orthodoxy.

Have you tried telling him to read a fucking book?

Lmao. If you actually believe this, that says a lot about you and where you got it.

Typical continental autist with the philosophical understanding of an edgy 16 year old thinking he's smarter than someone who's dedicated their life to philosophy.

Just take the continental containment classes please so I don't have to deal with your sperg outbursts and learn something instead.

This is why it's important to define terms rigorously and consistently.

Burgerbux, you're making me break into a sweat here.

Grow a fucking spine and annihilate him DURING CLASS.

Jesus Christ just fucking demolish him and don't let him talk over you. Crucify him and everything he believes in.

yes it is

you can't deny class struggle
if you do you are not a marxist


Not. Your. Blog.

He's absolutely right.

Kierkegaard received inspiration from Plato (as can be seen in his "Concept of Irony" thesis), but Kierkegaard wasn't "fueled by Plato" (as he was more fundamentally by Hegel and Christianity).

That doesn't relate to what I was saying. You can't place the work in the wider context of his philosophy, thus whether it would "fit with Nazism."

Then tell me where it's relevant in a discussion about Nietzsche and Nazism? Where have you been using your vaunted "mathematics education" in this thread? Christ, you're an ass.

Analytics everyone.

How are any of those alien to human experience? It's what Marx starts with.

Fuck off nigger I'm enjoying this.

You should've told him if he could analyze shit when he's in a coma if he keeps this up

Materialism presupposes the existence of an objective material world beyond that of human experience.
Are you seriously this dense?

where the fuck you meant to talk about force of nature?

continetanls everyone

getting shit from where it isn't since 1770

no you can't deny class struggle and call yourself a marxist

this is obvious

both are the same thing

again define "received inspiration" and "fueled by"

because for me they are the same thing

only one implies that one is more passive than other

"Some aspect of a position within a worldview is vaguely related to another position within someone's work in some way" is not the same as "the worldview builds on another's foundations." The former would be true of the relation between the two while the latter wouldn't be.

conty's are stupid af tho tbh

I understand that Engels' choice of word, "materialism", really confuses you, but what Marx observes is social relations.

What is being talked about all the time by Marx is not some metaphysical materialism where there is an objective material world that, for example, continues to exist if there are no people to observe it.

The "real world" he looks for to provide his interpretations of historical facts, is in material relations between people, which are not independent from human experience, quite the contrary.

It shouldn't surprise you continental philosophers like him, given that he puts humanity and its experience in the center, i.e. human science, as opposed to throw them out the window.

Nope, this is about Marx.

even "the world view builds on another's foundations" can be used to define Kierkegaard's relation to Socrates

and it also fits kierkegaard's relation to hegel

and it can also fit nazi's relation to nietszche

what the fuck?

materialism =/= metaphysics

His point seems to be that language such as "fueled by" is inherently ambiguous.

I, for instance, intuit the image of a car engine. This has highly fixed architecture, and is only made to operate somewhat differently and with varying degrees of efficacy based on which type of fuel you choose to place inside. Others may imagine a house or industrial fire, whose precise character is extensively dependent on the "fuel" being burned.

Clearly these are two very different concepts and not only can confusion arise between the two when they are made to share the same identifying label, it becomes trivial for a disingenuous argument to prove a statement for one meaning and apply the conclusions of the other in a sort of linguistic bait-and-switch.

Shh. The adults are talking.

You love Wikipedia so much, you get a [citation needed].

Marx is talking about people exchanging shit for other shit, where is this Marx being a complete philosopher? He's too busy changing the world as per These XI.

It's really not in my character, but I too realized that this is my only option if I want to stay, and I have to.

I want him sperging out on record, not me.

Eh, I mean, fuck me.

Yes, defining "matter" to mean "whatever physics ultimately decides to define matter as once it has 'finished' " does indeed imply belief that physics will "finish" because otherwise "matter" is not well-defined. That's mere tautology, though.
The point is moot regardless as the materialism of Marx is not this sort.

Maybe read something after the 1700s. Experience comes from truth and knowledge.

Ever heard of quantum mechanics?

Can you post your dissertation in this thread? Just curious

Also what do you think distinguishes your dissertation from all the shitty academic writings on the Frankfurt school which is all too popular (in a bad sense) in academia. I mean most of these writings don't seem to be written by even Marxists anyways

Also where do you live?

Again, the author is Lenin.

We're gonna ask Karl Marx himself for clues about what he could possibly mean by "materialism":

These I
Marx attacks earlier conceptions of materialism for excluding the subjective? Sounds to me like he was doing the present-day continental philosophy thing before it was cool.

These II
Marx is also anticipating later classical pragmatists - but not much "later" as they too were influenced by Hegel and began in the 19th century.

These VII

These IX

These X
Materialism here not that of the 21st century naturalist, scientific, physicalist kind. In fact, it isn't even grounded in matter per se.

It's 19th century opposition to German idealism and its metaphysical speculations.

You will find comparable differences in Marx's contemporary writers' and your own use of the word "science."

Marx's thinking is pragmatist and centers everything on social relations, eschewing human-component-free discourse.

This whole shitshow began with "a pre-existing truth alien to human experience then" allegedly being present in Marx's work, I don't see it guys. He has no intention on letting go of human experience.

There is a reason Marxists look for the philosophies of mind, metaphysics, ontology, etc. in the work of philosophers other than Marx, be them Hegel, Heidegger, classical pragmatists, the analytics or whoever you want.

whata bout it?

seconding this

"Fueled by" sounds like a stronger connection. I associate that with fire and machine movement. You put fuel in cars and jets. Suppose I have a vehicle and there is no fuel in it. Profound sadness. Then Neeeechah! comes and delivers the fuel, so I can drive my tank into the synagogue. This makes a big difference. Somebody saying some things that aren't in contradiction with what I believe and that inspire me sounds like giving me a pat on the back, and that doesn't get my tank rolling. Perhaps he tries to give the tank a little shove, but come on, it's different. Fuel for a machine makes the machine do the action it is designed for, inspiration goes to a person that can do a variety of actions. The different formulations have different connotations regarding the power of the effect, how quickly the effect occurs, and how narrow the possibilities for different outcomes are.

From my second-hand knowledge of Nietzsche the negative things he said about Jews he claimed also about Christians. So I don't believe that high-ranking nazis actually read, understood, and agreed with longer excerpts from Nietzsche. It's all some edgy words and short sentences. So what I'm saying is that Nietzsche probably wasn't a proto-nazi, and nazis were proto-meme "philosophers".

He's quoting primary sources just like you're doing. I don't see the problem.

Yes, Marx clearly rejects reductionist materialism.
Accepting that there exists an objective reality outside the ego's concept of it really doesn't imply any rejection of human experiences. But we can classify these experiences according to whether they derive from more primitive ones or directly from the fundamental stable factors of society, and hence analyze and value them accordingly.
The way you're waxing poetic about "human experience" almost strikes me as critical theory apologism.

Begorrah, boyo! You're about to activate my trap card

no you don't

go to >>>/sci/ and get shit on

Friendly Reminder that Wissenschaft means something different to the english word "Science"

Also I think to clarify the debate in this thread about Marx's "Materialism" it seems so far the debate has been around the interpretation of this Materialism being something to do with the general concept and primacy of Matter aka the Engelsian-Kautskyite-Plekhanov interpretation vs an non-ontological Materialism (a Materialism without Matter?) ala Western Marxism

German here.


You really are out of your depth here.

And more like three. Three and a half if you count Bachrach's computational orgo.

kill yourself

M8 that's you

Halfchan /sci/ is my main board and fags like you invade, shitpost your "muh QM proves free will is an illusion" "muh qualia" etc and get pounded into the dirt every time.

My point being it's inane to try and claim what quantum mechanics "means" philosophically without knowing what it does. Hint: popsci books tell you jack shit, and usually fall somewhere between sensationalist and wrong. If you're comparing your michio cuckold books to actual coursework and reading the primary literature, you have to go back

Go ahead though, give me your argument that QM """proves""" objective reality doesn't exist. Cause all I've heard so far is bitching.

three paragraphs of salt arguing against the exact thing you're doing by attempting to define QM right now on a shitpost forum

yawn, /sci/ would eat you alive

What are you talking about?

Where is this supposedly Marxian epistemology? I said Marx, not Engels' intepretation of him, nor Lenin's interpretation of Engels.

Oh please. It's all about praxis and the revolution. From your very own quoted article:


Would thinking of a naturalistic process philosophy, where everything is transforming and interrelated, help? In which there is no being, only becoming?

A materialism where matter doesn't… matter that much compared to the cosmic dances of energy, wave/particle relationships, and more - those forces being the reasons 'physicalism' is preferred today as a word over 'materialism.' Or, labour and societal relations, to stick to Marx's own forces and dimension of choice itself without the present day SCIENCE! and its achievements.

But the only people who use the term "Physicalism" are analytic autistfags and some scientists.

I'd really like to know more about quantum physics. My knowledge of is mostly informed by popsci. Where should I go, I would need some spoon feeding

The "standard" introductions are either Shankar or Townsend. Griffiths is easier and perhaps better suited to those with minimal background, but in any case you will need to know a bit of math.
McQuarrie's Pchem book is really nice but rather terse. I've heard it aptly called the "pchem bible," which is both a good and bad thing. It's very well organized.

Lecture series are often the best bet. This guy is cool, the guy that did is extremely tiring but some people may be fine with him

Philosophy is simply modern religion. It has no basis in reality.

Reality doesn't speak for itself, so yes.

Funny you should mention that, because quantum theory might be on the way out. That EmDrive you might have heard of recently could end up crashing the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, with no survivors.

funnily enough, I have this open in another tab right now

This must be the most retarded thing I've read all day.

current debate in analytical

explain this meme

Reality manifests and we can observe it.

Wow, please point me to the intellectual giants you were reading before.

do you know the methodology of analytical philosophy? their love affair with formal logic often results in them hyper-focusing on one very concise aspect of an 'argument' and they dissect it in honorable autistic fashion yet the end result is only a slightly different understanding/perspective

It's not in a language that you can understand.

Most philosophy courses in the world will leave out the Frankfurt school completely. Adorno & co. are continental philosophers. If you live in the anglo-american world there's 95% chance you'll get your PHD without even having to read an article by them.

I smell

what language?

If you live in the anglo-american world there's 95% chance you'll get your PHD without even having to read an article by them.

tell me at least 3 reasons way this is a bad thing

Congrats based user, you understand the biggest issue of anglo-american philosophy in the 21st century.

faculty consists of


[airhorn noises]
Continentals sure are special snowflakes.

Troll’s Truisms
Motte and Bailey Doctrines
And when that attack is over, one goes back to the Bailey, that is, one goes back to the less defensible position and pretends that were the same position that can be defended with success.
Equivocating fulcra
The Postmodernist Fox-trot
Rankly relativising fields and absolute irrationalism - this is all that shit put together.

Even making that claim is occupying a position though. It contradicts itself. To really be committed to the notion that philosophy can only be done negatively, one would have to remain open to the possibility that philosophy can be done positively.

Oh, look! It's another episode of my fav show named "pomo shitheads who love to tell everybody to read a book are actually functionally illiterate because of their autism which makes it hard for them to group characterisations correctly with the people they belong to if this isn't done for them every sentence and the author instead optimistically expects them to be not too retarded to actually make these connections properly from context cues".

God damn, you mad. I'm not even a pomo. I was just pointing out how the pomo foxtrot could be rebutted with much less effort.

I'm talking about the academic writing industry on the Frankfurt school (also on Gramsci) and how they are popular compared to other Marxists in academia not the shitty right-wing meme

It's in english isn't it?

The writings of a fourth grader are more sophisticated than your "critique" of philosophy.

top kek

Pomonese in the Assblastian dialect


wow, cool videos, thanks user

also I hate those fucking analyticals, but can can we keep Wittgenstein? he was nice

this is literally what contys do

and you call analytics autistic?


The truly wonderful thing is that Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness is a fucking millennium prize problem.



Hating people who say lmao - a racist hatred? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it it triggers after an L followed by Mao, a triggering response that is remarkable not so much in its presence, but in its absence, its null-reaction to similar constructs such as lkennedy, which references a WHITE male (co-incidence?) and discriminates a typo of a name that is a vital necessity to our (intersectional) identities. Needless to say, this game is rigged against both us tumblr warriorettes and the leftypol brocialists, but as an uphill battle it adds another variable of oppression for us womyn and our round female forms of fluidity.

I can die happy knowing someone, somewhere, acrually believed this.

Oh look, this meme again.

Wasn't the person who ended up BTFO much of Russel's life work, Russel himself?

Wow you surely are a hueg fag

The rest of the course was just a autism-fight between the two later positions, our paper at the end of the course is on Kuhn and Popper and Philosophy of Science - because analytics literally can't discuss anything that isn't sterile abstractions.

I, too, while I was reading your post, was thinking somebody ended up discovering William James by accident there, given that he happens to be American, and conceivably he'd be allowed in what is basically a British-American exclusive circlejerk.

More to the point: philosophers are all assholes.

Be glad you got that and not a goddamned Sunday School teacher.

I'm not familiary with the American way of doing these things, but what manner of university would hire one?

Like with self-referential stuff in sets?


He's not. He just told you he was on the receiving end of it.

how is saying

not an implication that analytics do not care about philosophy of religion?

Uhm are those 2 literally right-wing creationists?

Much science, much objectivity.


In English, prz.


In English, prz.

please restate your problem, otherwise: git fugd :DDD

this is it

get it now?

Please, prove us otherwise. Philosophy of religion (/theology) goes way beyond the emergence of (what we today call "modern") science, so I'd be rather surprised!


is this article enough to prove that science is used in philosophy of religion?

you seem assmad btw

Who said they were the same?

Lel, Would you get ass-blasted if I told you that science can't legitimize itself without recourse to philosophy?

dude it is just a fucking quote form wikipedia

stop changing the topic to meaningless thing and read the rest of the sentence

depends on what do you mean by philosophy and by what do you mean by science

tell me why do i need to know philosophy to know that atoms exists?

Can you scientifically prove the legitimacy of the scientific method?

Did you stop reading it there? I've read Plantinga, and his shit was equally abstracted from any notion of actual religious behaviour as the rest.

Yeah, it's not like religious behaviour is part of some universal human condition?

Oh wait.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.


pic related

why should platinga should talk about religious behavior?

he can talk about THE religion without the believers

Word knowledge is different from real knowledge boyo.