What am I in for?

>>24464330 (OP)
Something you can learn in 10 mins watching YouTube pop-sci videos. Read Imre Lakatos instead. He tried to rehabilitate Popper after he was BTFO by Kuhn.

book with paper and pages and purple cover by a guy called pooper...

>>24464330 (OP)
Clear but nonetheless 'involved' writing; my favorite work of his, actually. Struggles to be fair (whereas in Open Society there's no such struggle, for instance)

>>24464330 (OP)
Unironically the best example of why Jews can't be good philosophers. They are too afraid of death to seek truth and this clouds their thoughts creating cognitive dissonance.

>>24464330 (OP)
do you want a popper mint?

>>24464330 (OP)
>What am I in for?
Kuhn raping the shit out of him.

>>24464330 (OP)
His version of Verisimilitude is anemic just like Baudrillard's version of Hyperreality: they both assume the non-existence of Objective Truth.
For Popper, there is no 2+2=4, it's all "does it seem more truthful than 2+2=5 or 6?". The reality is that while 2+2=5 may have more verisimilitude than = 6, the epistemic truth is that it's 4. And this is epistemically multidisciplinary: math, logic, reason, etc. The Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction are not negotiable in "truthiness"; A=A.
Verisimilitude thus becomes to Popper: "What is the most believable lie?" in absence of the Truth (Let's be honest, God).
With Baudrillard it's similar, his pessimism with the Truth guides him to assume a false ontological dialectic of Maps vs Territories; where the the realist state of being is the latter. He breaks this down into the Hyperreal & the Real. This etymologically doesn't make sense since while Baudrillard assumes that there is nothing more real than reality (a unfounded assumption btw), and that this metaphysical Hyperreal layer is less real than real physical layer it represents.
In reality, "Hypereal" can be described more as "Hyporeal" since Baudrillard describes verisimilitudinous maps rather than maps that are more accurate than the terrority it describes (aka actual Hyperreality/being able to see things in themselves/essence).
You can see how Popper and Baudrillard come from this same anti-Epistemic vein of denying that the Truth even exists so humanity should just become better liars i.e Sophistry.
It's anti-Logos philosophy.

>>24465685
I missed you so much ;)

>>24465725
I miss you anons too anon.

>>24465685
bad analogy cause arithmetic is based on clear assumptions

>>24466164
then find a better one.
I'm still right.

>>24465685

Is that how far Baudrillard went with it? That's no good... I like Baudrillard when he's saying nothing on TV is real, but not if he's saying nothing is real at all :/.

>>24465725
>>24465825

I don't know you anons, but I bet I'd miss you too if I did

>>24466586
He's another French Neo-Marxist coming hot off of Materialism; he may as well be a disillusioned Nihilist (a lot of his intellectual colleagues ended up killing themselves).
Meanwhile you got theo-philosophers like Vladimir Lossky who preceded Baudrillard works on the Hyperreal and attributed its actual correct description of hyper-being: the things-in-themselves (Logoi).
Baudrillard's metaphysic won with Western Intelligentsia not because it was the truth, but because it had more verisimilitude to his peers: it felt truer to nihilists.
Meanwhile Humanity has been denying themselves this Phenomenology of God: if you want to see the essence of things ("ding an sich"), you're gonna need to borrow God's Eyes.
Something to work on for us individually and as a whole.
That's real Dasein/Theosis.
>I don't know you anons, but I bet I'd miss you too if I did
if Hell is "other people", then so is Heaven

Very good anons! Hug it out! Popper betrayed the entire world. He betrayed himself. Science isn't for poppers.

Baudrillard used math in some analogies but I'm going to tell all of you honestly I don't think he was a mathematical thinker. This has nothing to do with the merits of his ideas, anyone can peruse them, enjoy them, or discard them as they please. I liked Baudrillard but that's just my opinion and I won't hold that on anyone. Aside from analogies I don't think he mentioned math much at all.

This is good stuff. It's about time a popper thread brought litizens together.

>>24466675

I have a theory that French intellectuals have dominated Western thought because the material hegemon of the Western World is America, America is a state of English speakers displaced from the land of that language's nativity, and the conception of English is seen in French speaking William the Bastard entering the Germanic mother that was England through his conquest. In other words, contrary to an American's intuitive feeling about French and France, informed by our military propaganda, French is the father of modern English, and will hold an eternal paternal authority over English. Meanwhile, an orphan in America, the dynamics and cultural influences of English as a language in general less concerned with the 'other' than either of its 'parents', will continue to inform and develop this sickness unto death that is materlism in a postmodern world...

Die brücke ist eine frau in Deutsch, le pont est un homme en Française. A boy or a lady, they don't know which, but in English it's just the bridge, and you walk all over it. A chunk of material, an other, and so, de-selfed, in English.

Tl;dr schizo posting.

>>24466904
You should read Mitchell Heisman's suicide note, I think you'll like it

>>24466904
where to cop that drip tho?

>>24466675
>He's another French Neo Marxist
Except that he isn't
It amazes me how complete gibberish is broadcast with such 'knowing' confidence these days. Oh, well
I like none of you

>>24466910

It's pretty funny that you have to buy it to read it, but looks interesting, thanks anon.

>>24466974

The odds that you get no pussy are extremely high. Lighten up you joyless try hard. This is the fucking internet.

>>24466974
>he's an exception
>a special snowflake
you're talking about Jacques Ellul

>>24466850
You want to find a disciple of Popper's sophistry, look no further than the modern "Philosophers of Science" like Nathan Cofnas.
He sell your verisimilitude/bullshit wholesale!

remember to Hypersmile!
and let's be honest to ourselves, that fake photo is hyporeality, not hyperreality. that map is less real than the actual baudrillard. it was poor etymology that retarded the dialectic.

>>24466904
>Tl;dr schizo posting.
i'm fine with schizoposting
>whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad
it's a test. if you pass, you've proven yourself godlike.
if you can survive insanity of all competing worldviews/wills than you can start making sense of metaphysics and participate in weaving it. otherwise you're a loon and will most likely jump off a cliff thinking you'll fly or some dumb shit/hamartia reason.
we could bring up Gilles & Deleuze but this thread is already too juiced with Frenchies that it'd be considered both gauche & superfluously tautological (I love being me btw ;)).
Eventually you start understand schizo like it's a dialect; makes it easier to understand homeless people (make them go away without just paying them to fuck off). Though it's not as enjoyable as speaking plainly in truths.
Even here I have to aesthetically sound like a pompous smart ass for the (you)s / rhetoric.
So keep it up anon; there's payoff if you achieve meta-sanity/clarity.
>I have a theory...
It's an interesting theory and one I kinda share myself with regards to the potentiality of language as a schema for neologism/new ideas. Obviously primitive languages would only produce primitively abstractions, but more complex languages could do more. This gets into semiotics where while the signified objects tend to be universally understood, the signifiers (words) is the limiter on what can be expressed symbolically between a culture. Long story short, there's some truth to what you say about the French Intelligentsia being in a position to descriptively "lecture" us and have the nomenclature & clout to do so.
>Die brücke ist eine frau in Deutsch, le pont est un homme en Française. A boy or a lady, they don't know which, but in English it's just the bridge, and you walk all over it. A chunk of material, an other, and so, de-selfed, in English.
There's a beauty in that distinction though: they are both true to their peoples. The French have an explanation & history for their word and and the Germans theirs. That's why stuff like etymology and philology matter; the study of these distinctions that we nominally dismiss out of heuristic convince ("It's just the same word...").
Then again, Modern English is a powerful linguistic tool for describing things accurately and creating new ideas (neologisms): all memes are pretty much in English.
It's become a memetic lingua franca.

>>24467651
>[English] has become a memetic lingua franca.
as a thought experiment, imagine a world of Chinese memes instead...
to me it seems like it would naturally stifle creative mobility a tad. I don't think that language lends itself as well as others in this department.
personally I think English was the perfect language for a Global Empire; it was that flexible with it's array of phonemes and registers and the like. Other languages have perhaps historically limited the scope of an empire's scale in that regard.

>>24467651

I only let myself collapse into full schizo for lulz, I'm pretty well in control. I agree with what you say about English being a fine language for mechanistic description, however, it is not the best language to furnish a "spirit", and I think we're suffering that right now in a profound way. You can read about it when I finish the trilogy with "Being and Spirit", and unlike my two colleagues, I will be neither a careerist nazi, nor a serial rapist. Just a chill bro, sometimes a funny clown.

>>24467688
>"Being and Spirit"
Good name. Daisen und Geist.
I agree, English can feel soulless and glib. The Latin languages are more poetic while the Germanic ones are more constructive. It's a good synthesis of those for the time being though, no? The Norman Conquest and the Glorious Revolution rubbed off on it.
I'd like to read you trilogy anon; look forward to it.

>>24467688
>"Being and Spirit"
Good name. Dasein und Geist.
I agree, English can feel soulless and glib. The Latin languages are more poetic while the Germanic ones are more constructive. It's a good synthesis of those for the time being though, no? The Norman Conquest and the Glorious Revolution rubbed off on it.
I'd like to read you trilogy anon; look forward to it.

>>24467699
>The Latin languages are more poetic
hell I'm listing to this right now and feel an urge dance; that's pathos/spirit.
https://youtu.be/T3KCygkIcU8?t=101
On an aside, 『Father/Logic, Son/Ethos, Spirit/Pathos』is this your framing?

>>24464330 (OP)
poppers and weird sex

>>24467699

It's not mine... but I wanna finish what Heidegger started and Sartre sequeled. I mean I have a substack if you really mean it, desu. I have 2 actually. One where I publish my bad prose, one where I publish my bad analysis (I don't wanna say critique. Critique has been poisoned by les Marxists). I just posted something five minutes ago about how Peterson "won" his "debate" on Jubilee/surrounded.

>>24467706

No the Son is Pathos, feeling flesh. The Father is Ethos, or Law. The Holy Ghost is Logos, language, The Word. I think this dynamic, this incidental discovery of the tripartite nature of a fully functioning human, is the REAL reason Christianity conquered the Roman empire. And this idea that some of Derrida's critics have that he was suggesting language was alive... I don't know if he was truly saying that or not, but... if he was, I believe he was correct. It has a sort of life we can't describe, because that would be a meta-meta function from Jakobson's list. We would have to... talk about language from outside of language. We don't know how to do that.

We don't use language like we use hammers and screw drivers. It's more like a pack animal. Potentially dangerous, potentially with a will of its own. If you let me keep going though, we'll start talking about Egregores. Then we're in REAL schizo hourz.

>>24467709
>finish what Heidegger
become a living saint and start being godlike.
Western Theology lacked the theological mechanism and language for this; instead they pursued rationalism/scholasticism as a path to Truth (which was too anthropocentric at the expense of theocentricity).
Meanwhile Eastern Christian Theology had already developed an understand of Theosis and how to achieve it consistently through praxis: Hesychasm. It's one path, but it's a working path toward changing your nature to be able know nature of things.
it makes sense the more you think about it (which is the point; it's supposed to be Regenerative Epistemology).
Start looking at things from God's Perspective rather than anthropocentrically; develop a Phenomenology of God.
Humans can't save themselves. We are incomplete gods (fallen creatures made in God's Image). By emulating Christ we can follow God's Will through the Holy Spirit to know the Father; a reverse procession from our perspective/Climbing the Ladder.

>>24467724
>Start looking at things from God's Perspective rather than anthropocentrically; develop a Phenomenology of God.
>By emulating Christ
Remember "God became man, so we might become gods" - St. Athanasius of Alexandria
It's why He's the God-man. We can relate to God now and we should. It changes our nature and we start becoming more like God in how we act, think, behave, know, experience, etc.
There's no end to it.

>>24467718
It's an interesting formulation and perhaps not as rigid as you suggested (Perichoresis?). I agree that the ontological composite of Western Man having a Mind, Body, & Spirit has been a huge strength of truth and set us apart from the lower resolution perspectives (no one's really longing for Roman Pagan metaphysics or contemptuous Greek/Norse/Shinto gods (even the Celestial Bureaucracy is looks bloated & inefficient)). Though the framing is much too apparent for me to see otherwise: 『 Mind (Father), Body (Christ), Spirit (Holy) 』; it's too congruent theologically for me to change and would become non-sequitur to me.
>Egregores. Then we're in REAL schizo hourz.
or Plasmates from Philip K. Dick. that's a hoot!
thanks for having fun with me tonight anon.
really mean it.

>>24467709
oh and share your substack(s) if you feel like sharing

>>24467751


https://www.substack.com/@berwynbruno

https://www.substack.com/@mrbitter

You don't have your own, anon?

I wonder what happened to owl poster... I sure hope he found some friends (or pussy).

this thread reminds me of the heyday of schizo /lit/. good times. invaluable times.

>>24468231

There's no reason we can't have that back, French.

>>24467746

What I'm getting at here is that, a human appears to be this species of ape, existing interdependently with language, taught their language by the extant culture (which is what else but a set of rules/laws). We're three things in order to be one. Christianity was the first to recognize this, and my perspective on the other two Abrahamic faiths is that Judaism only really worships The Father (Law), and Islam only really worships The Holy Ghost.

Might as well read david stove

>>24464379
that's too hot for /lit/

>>24466164
there is no logical foundation of arithmetic

>>24468223
I don't have a substack.
Thanks again for sharing anon; nice to have some real company on this here digital astral plane aka "Internet".
looks like owlanon has flown the coop; slinked off into the night to another thread...
maybe I was too hard on Baudrillard?

>>24468238
>What I'm getting at here is that, a human appears to be this species of ape, existing interdependently with language, taught their language by the extant culture (which is what else but a set of rules/laws).
I'm just getting hung up on the universal reduction to the ape narrative: what if it's particular? Like what if some people are ape-like and some people are god-like in nature? Obviously this would offend the sensibilities of the ape-like people who would most like just claim that everyone is ape-like and god-like people can't exist because God doesn't exist. Or perhaps it's a false premise to begin with. Maybe aliens/panspermia/simulation theory? kek
My point: If God, why apes? Seems like a extra-steps that we created to replace God (Hence the whole Grand Philosophical Project of Man to explain Reality without Him).
So if God, then will-to-power away the Cult of Evolution a a pretender deity (and all its clergy & disciples).
Truly I don't see myself as an ape; this is absurd. I see myself as made in God's Image given His admission and my experience existing as such.
>We're three things in order to be one. Christianity was the first to recognize this, and my perspective on the other two Abrahamic faiths is that Judaism only really worships The Father (Law), and Islam only really worships The Holy Ghost.
If the Christians are the first to recognize this, then how? What epistemic route allowed them to find this out because it wasn't empirical, phenomenological, or rational. Humanity only learned this about itself because God came down and revealed this in the Flesh & Spirit. The Homo Sapien "Wise Man" didn't figure it out on his own; this truth didn't come anthropocentrically. God told us what our nature was to our face. We need more of this because humans kinda really suck at understanding real things they can't see (and we have very active & erroneous imaginations).
I just don't know how people be so blazé in the face of the Truth.
You got a Guy that batted 1000/1000 and people still think He's not who He says He is.
Too much Existentialism these days; everyone faith went into apotheosis rather than theosis...
>Be whatever you want to be*
>(*as long as it's not Christ-like)

/blog

>>24468231
there's a vitality to it

>>24469039

If you only understand Baudrillard in the way I did, as a critic of sensational journalism, it could be a pretty feely hurty thing to hear. I briefly had my feelings hurt when I learn't the trooph, but I got over it. I hope he can escape his conditioning.

I hope I do this right...

>>24469122
>My point: If God, why apes? Seems like a extra-steps that we created to replace God

I dunno anon but I don't think Christianity (or any of the 3 Abrahamic faiths) contravenes evolution as a possible process for the development of we organisms. We pretty visibly have a lot in common with other primates, namely apes. Our relationship to God's image is in our (Saussurian meaning) structural existence. As the Holy Ghost, He gave us our initial relationship to Himself (Logos/language). The Liason to the Pleroma. Words for abstract concepts (or generalizable forms, shapes, colors) are like frosted windows to that Place. We can never access the Ideal, here on Earth, but we can (and must, in order to communicate at the human level) allude to it through language. Through that tiny itty bitty little fragment of The Holy Ghost that lives in us. God's day obviously has nothing to do with the rotation of our humble planet about our humble sun, as God's first day began before either of those existed. There was plenty of time during those Days for humanity to develop from lemurs, to monkeys, to chimps, to this. We are not "apes" any longer, in the sense of having this status of a community with God... but I don't believe He wanted us to continue thinking we were "peculiar". That's why He sent His Son as the Man. To show us what a true Peculiarity amongst humankind would look like. The Perfect Man. And Jesus of course is all too human, He is flesh, and suffers His flesh, just as we do. He suffers His flesh the same way we suffer ours, but too a depth far more profound than any man could survive, and He did so to show us just how very much more we could be capable of, if we accepted that bitter fact that choked the Pharisees (uh oh, here comes /pol/). That we aren’t special. We are just a lot of dirty monkeys. We are sinners.
But we can be forgiven, if we really try

>If the Christians are the first to recognize this, then how?

That's just what I'm saying though. I'm not trying to remove God from the equation. He is, as always, the necessary condition. I'm saying He came to teach us all this, by being one of us. God is just God. He isn't a Trinity and I'm aware that Trinity theory post dates the actual appearance of Scripture. But God Loved us so passionately, He chose to send His Son to us, Understanding that was the only way we would truly learn how to live.


Mmm... great talk for Sunday this is.

>>24464332
No one takes Kuhn seriously

>>24467688

>>24470279
Yahweh's wife is not a semi-Greek carpenter? But Yahweh *likes* fucking dudes.

>>24470367
Ascend

>>24469950
>We are just a lot of dirty monkeys. We are sinners.
Be humble for you are made of shit.
Be noble for you come from stars.
I guess it's a balancing act of being.
Then again, I would like to shed that ape/sinner nature and become more than that. It think it's possible thru God.
>God is just God. He isn't a Trinity
for me it's hard Trinitarianism; especially from a gestalt collective divine will perspective. just makes too much sense and as you said, what brought man out of it's monistic and diametric modes of thinking and into a trinary mode of cognizance; otherwise I think it would be Father vs. Son without the Spirit.
even ourselves are not one or merely dualistic; we have internal conflict with our own wills all the time. My mind doesn't always agree with the urges of my body and the the direction of my spirit.
The Persons of Trinity don't have this conflict since they all have the same Divine Will. That's the difference in being and why it's confusing for us; our wills are not harmonious; not in perichoresis.
We even fight our own wills in temporally how many New Year's resolutions have you vetoed from your past selves' wills?
It's very odd to think not only that we are schizophrenically a composite of multiple wills but this is the case with regards to phenomenological existence: I haven't met a person who didn't under self-conflict or who never "Changed his own mind".
To change one's own will is phenomenon that rarely gets focus despite the metaphysical dynamics going on there for that to occur in people. Not only do you have free will, you have multiple free wills.
Since this is the case, we should work to find modes to harmonize them.
Following Christ seems like the best way to achieve this internal harmony of wills.

>>24469950
>We are just a lot of dirty monkeys. We are sinners.
Be humble for you are made of shit.
Be noble for you come from stars.
I guess it's a balancing act of being.
Then again, I would like to shed that ape/sinner nature and become more than that. It think it's possible thru God.
>God is just God. He isn't a Trinity
for me it's hard Trinitarianism; especially from a gestalt collective divine will perspective. just makes too much sense and as you said, what brought man out of it's monistic and diametric modes of thinking and into a trinary mode of cognizance; otherwise I think it would be Father vs. Son without the Spirit.
Even ourselves are not one or merely dualistic; we have internal conflict with our own wills all the time. My mind doesn't always agree with the urges of my body and the the direction of my spirit.
The Persons of Trinity don't have this conflict since they all have the same Divine Will. That's the difference in being and why it's confusing for us; our wills are not harmonious; not in perichoresis.
We even fight our own wills in Time e.g. How many New Years resolutions has your present self not followed thru on that you promised your past self?"
It's very odd to think not only that we are schizophrenically a composite of multiple wills but this is the case with regards to phenomenological existence: I haven't met a person who didn't experience self-conflict or who never "changed their own mind". Even now I resist the urge to go to bed despite being tired and knowing it's what I should do at this hour. How? Why? I'm doing it.
To change one's own will is phenomenon that rarely gets focus despite the complex metaphysical dynamics going on there for that to occur in people. Not only do you have free will, you have multiple free wills interacting.
Since this is the case, we should work to find modes to harmonize them.
Following Christ seems like the best way to achieve this internal harmony of wills.

>>24470257
No one takes you seriously, pseud.

>>24464330 (OP)
Waste of time just read a history of philosophy that covers the 20th century and analytic philosophy
Also read the knowledge machine by Micheal strevens

>>24471240
Kuhn is totally irrelevant and only interesting to an esoteric niche.

>>24471687
Kuhn literally changed the way I think and I can’t go back

>>24471687
>only interesting to an esoteric niche
not even

>>24472305
Read Walter Ong's little book Orality and Literacy: there'll be no turning back from this one, either.

>>24472305
You must be awfully gullible

>>24468231
>>>/x/40542565

>>24464330 (OP)
Kuhn gives me erections before breakfast and five vital vitamins and iron.

>>24471687
>esoteric niche
How often do people say "paradigm shift", retard? That came from Kuhn. Fuck you're a pretentious pseud, lol.

thread about to die.
may as well post it ;)

>>24474277
Explains temporal cognitive phenomena like Deja Vu and the Mandela Effect.
Perhaps your loved ones will come back one day and everyone will think you were crazy for thinking their were dead the whole time...

>>24465685
Popper bs is self evident, meanwhile Hyperreality is the de facto way of reading modernity.
No one reads Baudrillard for metaphysical rigor he just expanded on Debord's Society of Spectacle.

>>24474277
Meds

>>24474849
where's the lie?

>>24475481
>positivism. Juvenile positivism.
Get on Feyerabend's level.

>>24464330 (OP)
Fedora tipping

>>24466904
>>24466910
this is just projection coming from the French who couldn't keep their monarchy intact. the English shouldn't bear any guilt for babysitting a country who's reaction to Rome was one of schizophrenia. the entire history of thought emanating from France was essentially them being caught in between German systematizing and English rigor, so they went off into reaction against both, always feuding with either/or, creating post-structuralism to justify pedophilia and cuckery. the pedestalizing of French literature and language here is a psyop.

tl;dr I literally wrote an essay on substack about this.

>>24475499
Not just that. It's Boltzmannian.
In an Entropic Universe, Will could survive at the energetic Total Heat Death of a System. You could be physically paralyzed but be cognizant; be physically immobile but metaphysically mobile.
This is the case ontologically unless proven otherwise; you can't just assume one-case-on-the-other.

>>24476141
The "Boltzmann Brain" here is just a bio-philosophical carrier of Your Will.
In Ludwig Boltzmann's case, it was literally a floating brain in space to make his case about entropy and the anthropic principle.
Everyone else pretty much sees it merely as their immaterial soul/psyche co-existing with their material self.

>>24476153
>Everyone else pretty much sees it merely as their immaterial soul/psyche
a map
co-existing with their material self.
a territory
(the regression Baudrillard)

>>24476153
>Everyone else pretty much sees it merely as their immaterial soul/psyche
a map
>co-existing with their material self.
a territory
(the regression to the Baudrillard)

>>24476141
>This is the case ontologically unless proven otherwise; you can't just assume one-case-on-the-other.
And remember, what if the Universe doesn't have enough energy left to kill you; no entropy left for you to die? Now that's a ghoulish thought for the wicked of mind...

>>24476162
>>their material self
>a map
the observable thing.
the phenomenon.
the energia.
>>their immaterial soul/psyche/pself
>a territory
the unobservable thing-in-itself (logoi)
the noumenon
the ousia.

>>24476162
>>their immaterial soul/psyche/pself
>a map
the unobservable thing-in-itself (logoi)
the noumenon
the ousia.
>>their material self
>a territory
the observable thing.
the phenomenon.
the energia.

>>24464330 (OP)
Op here. How the fuck is this thread still alive it's been almost a week man

>>24476282
All honestly OP, I knew it was gonna be a stinker so I hijacked it and injected some life into this thread.

>>24464332
>recommending Youtube
>unironically
Get behind me satan