|
That's not empiricism, that's just more poorly done critical theory.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
extra stout posted:this is mostly true in my book but what alternative do you think we should look to drugs and surgery
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
extra stout posted:this is mostly true in my book but what alternative do you think we should look to Idk try shooting the poo poo with your mates or just talking to someone? O wait this is America and you suffer from a collective perpetual neurosis about imagined homoeroticism. You know there's literally nothing more gay than being obsessed with what's gay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
neurosis is a fake word for idiots who've never seen the chaos of a billowing cloud as analogous to the winner take all dogpile of neuronal stochasticity
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:That's not empiricism, that's just more poorly done critical theory. What is the empiricist alternative to PUA then? Nothing, I bet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
op believes in god lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:drugs and surgery at least this one is fun lite frisk posted:Idk try shooting the poo poo with your mates or just talking to someone? O wait this is America and you suffer from a collective perpetual neurosis about imagined homoeroticism. You know there's literally nothing more gay than being obsessed with what's gay? this one is laughable, hey you family members and friends of mine could we talk about the hit show Seinfeld until my perspective of the universe is one that i can function within?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
there sure are a lot of bitches in this thread afraid of using their innate human reasoning to ascertain the nature of the world around them rather than the scientific method the greeks used reason to determine the existence of atoms over 2000 years before scientists stopped boiling piss in jugs for a living
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
extra stout posted:this one is laughable, hey you family members and friends of mine could we talk about the hit show Seinfeld until my perspective of the universe is one that i can function within? idk what to tell you, im sorry your friends and family are emotionally and emphatically stunted shadows of a human being  ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
zizek is like a marxist santa claus. you should grow out of him but i pity anyone who never believed in him or cant appreciate his unique magic
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
extra stout posted:this is mostly true in my book but what alternative do you think we should look to oh i don't know how about manning the gently caress up and putting up with your fee-fees like everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
I think a system that ultimately uses logical parsing to describe human behavior is doomed to fail. Biological life is a causal series of imaginary numbers that is rooted in accumulation and decay. You reach an entropic limit at the membrane that life manifests through. At its very best psychology could describe life up to a few moments before conception, everything after is an unparsable unit of free will that will either decay or be consumed, completely unique and manifesting a completely new and personal reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Horniest Manticore posted:oh i don't know how about manning the gently caress up and putting up with your fee-fees like everyone else? Everytime a sadbrains commits suicide a goon gets his get-out-of-hell-free card. Its a substitution thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings, who were of 3/4 Jewish descent, saw themselves as Jews. The issue has arisen in particular regarding Wittgenstein's schooldays, because Adolf Hitler was at the same school for part of the same time.[65] Laurence Goldstein argues it is "overwhelmingly probable" the boys met each other: that Hitler would have disliked Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ..."[66] Other commentators have dismissed as irresponsible and uninformed any suggestion that Wittgenstein's wealth and unusual personality may have fed Hitler's antisemitism, in part because there is no indication that Hitler would have seen Wittgenstein as Jewish.[67] Lol it's like fanfiction but about real people
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Zizek rulers, liberal humanists drool
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Can't fliz flek the Zizek. Netflix kept recommending me this movie and I've never watched it like 99% of their lovely documentaries and Netflix Originals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
You don't even have to be a scientist to see it. I studied history and more or less any time these science-by-way-of-philosophy types talk about the past it's the most absurdly narrow, cherry-picked view imaginable.The Saurus posted:there sure are a lot of bitches in this thread afraid of using their innate human reasoning to ascertain the nature of the world around them rather than the scientific method 'The Greeks' over several centuries suggested everything at one point or other. We remember atoms because that's pretty much the only time they were vaguely right about things outside what they could observe. Atoms were one theory in a billion and nobody paid them any special attention. Mathematics and astronomy and so on? Great. Physics where they only had their intuition to go on? Wrong wrong wrong. Natural philosophy bad, intuition bad. In modern times it's literally a case of 'I wish I had answers to all these fascinating questions, but I have none of the training to really grapple with them. But that's not fair I still want to contribute surely it's just as good if I feel something makes sense as long as I'm really smart, honest?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
hey empirical observation of the evidence owns but innate human reasoning owns too
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
it's like two great minds battling it out, and i've got a front row seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Hell Yeah posted:it's like two great minds battling it out, and i've got a front row seat. you'll pay for the whole seat, but you'll only use the edge
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:'The Greeks' over several centuries suggested everything at one point or other. We remember atoms because that's pretty much the only time they were vaguely right about things outside what they could observe. Atoms were one theory in a billion and nobody paid them any special attention. Mathematics and astronomy and so on? Great. Physics where they only had their intuition to go on? Wrong wrong wrong. Natural philosophy bad, intuition bad. a lot of people forget this & it's how we get people obsessed with "getting back to old ways" and believing that the ancient egyptians really did have magic ways of stacking rocks into pyramids, instead of using raw manpower. i never hear anyone suggesting something similar about the great wall of china. anyway zizek et al seem pretty obsessed with themselves, i have a lot of trouble understanding them and when i sit down and diagram out their sentences i find these people saying things that could be said with shorter words, easier to understand, but aren't, because ~*reasons*~ my guess is they believe their vocabulary is what sets them, the professional Philosophers, aside from the average youtube blogger. doesn't make it any more useful tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
froward posted:anyway zizek et al seem pretty obsessed with themselves, i have a lot of trouble understanding them and when i sit down and diagram out their sentences i find these people saying things that could be said with shorter words, easier to understand, but aren't, because ~*reasons*~ it's intellectual hazing. if you can decipher the bullshit you can be part of the club, so that you can write inscrutable horseshit for others to try to decipher
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Modern psych researchers are tripping over themselves to declare some groundbreaking new findings that have already been explored in far greater depths by much smarter thinkers over a century ago. The scientists exploring these questions through rigorous methodologies aren't ignorant of the ideas put forward by 19th century thinkers - in many cases, their research is inspired by them - but those thinkers did not explore these in "far greater depths". They understood the directionality of the underlying principles, but because they didn't actually test them they couldn't go deeper than that. For example, consider the point you refer to Freud about making decisions about things before conscious awareness. Cognitive psychology is interested in not just knowing that tends to happen, but in understanding to what extent and in what contexts this happens. The eventual goal is to create actual scientific laws describing them, rather than an abstract qualitative and unverified description. Priming, the Stroop effect, Fitt's law, behavioural economics around utility - it's not enough to say the world is an illusion and people's perceptions are flawed when we can create the tools to measure in what ways they are flawed. No psychology researcher is putting out a paper saying "your reality is actually not truly reality" and acting like that's a revelation. They are putting out papers saying people's time to recall the word giraffe is 25% faster, when primed with an image of a giraffe displayed for 0.05 seconds below the threshold of conscious detection before the task. Deriving consistent laws and models with actual predictive power is much more useful. Also, designing experiments to test phenomena which are difficult to observe directly is something that takes a lot of creativity and talent, so it's important not to confuse the dry mechanisation of process with the brilliance often required to innovate that process. If I'm interested in how people's unconscious processes influence their decisions, I think there's a lot more to learn from Kahneman than Marx on the topic. Not that Marx's analysis was incorrect, or to downplay the intellectual quality of the ideas, but modern methodologies and approaches have taken it considerably further along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 03:15
|
|