Why do people act as if enlightenment and romanticism are sort of equal?

>A whore walking on the dead bodies of the French
shit art

it is inaccurate now, as was natural science in last centuries.
But it will probably become better in the future, and give birth to "social" engineering that will apply the theories developped by social science.

She represents the Spirit of Liberty

You might be right.

Which is one of the reasons I am skeptical of science and reason to begin with, because it is power in its most distilled form, e.g the power of knowledge.

At some point that power will become totalitarian, and freedom will cease to exist, and everyone will even be happy that it happened.

>Science
It's not a belief system or a worldview you fucking idiot.
It's a for analytical tool used since the fucking Greeks.

freedom is power
without power, you can never be free, you will be always the victim of the cruel, uncaring nature.

science is very much a belief system
it acts on the unproved assumptions that
>the world is governed by certain fundamental laws
>those laws can be understood by humans
>they act every in the universe equally

You just see science as a fact because you were raised in a society that takes science for granted. Just like people in the past took religious dogma for granted

Yeah but you just said hereThat social science will eventually come to a stage where it will be as accurate as natural science.

If it does, governments and private entities will enforce a specific arrangement upon people(Because it is "scientifically accurate"), and society will stop being free.

I agree, I wanted to say that science isn't a truth like God.

well, you would be still free to not follow that arragement, but through your better understanding of social science, or through personal experience, you would understand soon that it makes you happier to stick to that arrangement.

Just like today, they are people who are against vaccine, and they children suffer due to their choices.

I would argue that the ultimative truth is fundamentally inaccessible to humans.
Science is the next best thing we have

>but through your better understanding of social science, or through personal experience, you would understand soon that it makes you happier to stick to that arrangement.

That's exactly my point you moron.

As soon as something becomes a scientific fact, it stops being debatable, and everyone has to listen and obey, which is why science and power is essentially the same thing.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like people talking like that in a social setting.

but why does it bother you?
Is it bad that nowadays we know which medicine works, and dont have to rely on faith healers and charlatans?

In my opinion, you can only make a choice if you know the consequences, and science gives you that knowledge

Like I said, I understand the utility of science. It is after all why I am sitting on the internet.

But you're also ignoring the obvious dark side of science, which chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and massive industrialization which is spewing shit that causes cancer into the atmosphere.

But you obviously don't care about that at all as long as you have your next fun little gadget.

>As soon as something becomes a scientific fact, it stops being debatable,
Not under falsificationism and paradigmatism. In the former, a scientific fact is ALWAYS up to debate, as long as you can falsify it, in the latter it's ALWAYS up to debate if a scientific crisis arises.

>Not under falsificationism and paradigmatism

Which are not well-subscribed philosophical schools.

Popper and Thomas Kuhn are both considered pariahs in the philosophy of science.

>But it will probably become better in the future
Not very likely, given the people currently running it are the biggest part of a self-perpetuating opinion engine based on a shoddy mish-mash of at least three competing theories, which is taught to future sociologists as an a-ok situation. Psychology may have decent merit but sociology is academic cancer.

Both of which laid the groundworks for actually well-subscribed philosophical schools, which I subsume under those terms.

But which schools are even less subscribed by serious philosophers of science than those early schools you mentioned?

Any one that has undebatable facts like in .

Romanticism was seen as bringing feeling, sympathy and sentiment to a world where exploitation and general meanness is sanitized and reduced to numbers on a piece of paper, a splash of color in a monotonous mechanical world where everything is bent towards economy. Dionysian emotion stopped being a weakness that makes you easy to manipulate but rebellion. Apollonian moderation no longer meant strength and independence but mindless conformism to authority.

Simple positivism is vastly more subscribed to than any of those. Paradigmatism and falsificationism actually require you to use your rational faculties, which is something scientists don't care about.

I wouldn't even call a simple positivist a scientist. That's just someone going through the motions of science.

Nationalism (i.e., shit that makes you still belong in your community right now).

>I wouldn't even call a simple positivist a scientist

Why not exactly?

It's not uncommon for a scientist to say that anything that can't be verified with physical evidence or mathematics literally isn't real. Especially the New Atheists say this shit all the time.

nationalism came from the enlightenment, retard.

No, no he has a point. Scientific truth is just one kind of truths. There are many other kinds of truths. Trying to force everything in society to become scientific would be disastrous.

Wrong.

>muh faerie imagination land deserves to be on equal footing to verifiable evidence

those dead guys weren't feeling the liberty.

Don't join a discussion where you don't understand the subject fagtron.

>muh idealism
and of course, as usual, continentals refuse to explain their positions, and suppor them exclusively with bullshit.

Nationalism is cancer. City-states are the best form of belonging to a greater community.

Romanticism was the equivalent of SJW and Reactionaries now

>M-Muh feelings

>and brought us reactionaries like Hitler, who caused immense suffering.
The idea of a dictatorial leader like Hitler would be impossible without Enlightenment though.

>t. Dorkheimer

>The idea of a dictatorial leader like Hitler would be impossible without Enlightenment though.
fucking moron, do you even think about the shit you say?
the era before enlightenment was utterly dominated by dictators. the nazis wanted to go back to it. the nazis were almost the apex of counter enlightenment

Cola di Rienzi, or venetian doges?

And how was Hitler a reactionary?

Exactly, hence the whole "revolution" thing they had goin on

Dictator means someone who rules in emergency state, you crackpot. Hereditary monarchy isn't the same.

Yeah because pre-Enlightenment societies never had dictators of any sort, amirite?

>Dictator means someone who rules in emergency state

No it doesn't you total fucking halfwit. Stop trying to present yourself as being of average intelligence, because you're a fucking simpleton.

...

Treating humans like if we were machines that need to be "fixed" is abominable. It's one thing to prevent a virus from killing you, it is a different thing to re-wire your brain to act differently.

You are killing the individual, removing free-will, and changing the essence of the being.

Well, in my opinion, what science basically does is give more power to the man.
And it is true, with more power, the man can do more of everything, including more evil.
But I am rather optimistic, I do believe that given the choice, we prefere to be rather good than bad, and that we find solutions to the new challenges we face today

I am not entierly sure what you are talking about.
Only 75 years ago, we were fighting each other in a total war.
50 Years ago, the world was locked in a cold war, facing the very real threat of nuclear annihilation.

The fact, that nowadays, our leaders meet in a g20 meeting, and have some general consens, this is really something that is unique in history of mankind. And this makes me really optimistic about future

You don't understand quantum mechanics. You rely on faith to say that it is truth. Also coincidentally quantum mechanics say that sometimes, in an infinite amount of time, even impossible things can happen.

There is much we don't know about the universe, and we never will. For example, we'll never truly know how life started on Earth, or how the universe was formed. We'll never know if there is life in a Galaxy 100.000.000 LY away because we will never be able to reach it. Maths might be universal but out understanding of them is flawed, and what they can tell us for certain is limited.

No matter how much science is created, you will never personally know if anyone exists outside of your mind, or if anyone will exist after you die. You can only have faith in it based on evidence.

Real scientists, at least a big chunk of them, recognize that science and the scientific method is a tool. Lack of evidence isn't a sign of something not being truth. After all, if you said that there were big points in space where there was so much gravity not even light could escape from them, you'd be labeled a madman, yet it would of been truth. No, lack of evidence just means you can't ASSUME something is truth, you cannot say with 100% certainty that something is truth, but the possibility will remain.

And then was censored so as not to offend people

Science is great. People are not. The problem is that we've reached a point where it only takes a handful of nutjobs to create great pain and suffering, and as technology progresses things will only get worst.

We can only hope we master space colonization but not FTL travel, that way we can get the fuck away from said nutjobs.

ah yes, nationalism, which gave us two world wars

Explain

his ideology was literally migration age we wuzzing

Ever heard of the Berlin conference or the treaties of london>implying it wasn't unrestrained capitalism that started the second

but we are machines, or rather, we are animals
there is nothing supernatural about us.
One day, in not so far future, we will completely understand how human brain works, and which algorithms cause conciousness

true, and thats why we can't only advance natural science, we also have improve our political system, to prevent nutjobs from coming into positions of power.
That's why it is so dangereous when people like Trump get elected

Why do people act as if bronze working and the illiad are sort of equal?
Bronze working brought us better farming, freedom, the scalpel and the sacrificial knife. It is the corner stone of the modern western democracy.
The illiad is basically "muh feels", and brought us reactionaries like Peisistratos, who caused immense suffering.
That's how retarded you sound

It was nationalistic and racial delusion of one man (and a small group), that started the second world war and brought so much death and misery over mankind

Does the fact that there is nothing supernatural about us (tho you can't really affirm that) make it any more moral to basically brainwash people? I don't think so.

I wouldn't find it ethical if it was done to a fully artificial robot who has shown signs of sentience either. Or animals for that matter.

Don't bring politics into this.

Also no nutjub needs to be in power. Right now it is possible for someone to built a nuclear bomb in their basement if they have a few connections. It's only going to get worst as time goes on.

are you against psychology, or against treating mental illness?
Do you consider it brainwashing?

it is certanly not possible, unless you are a millionaire.
and even then, one nuke isn't even nearly enough to destroy the world

Psychology in the US is amoral IMO, it's basically "here, have this drug that I was paid to promote'.
In most of the rest of the world it consists on talking to people, asking then questions, and basically helping people question themselves, and find answers on their own. It's basically coached philosophy about one-self. Certainly different from "Here, we'll replace this part of your brain with a different one that works differently'. I might not necessarily have any proof of this, as all other things about the human "being", but I think that if you did that, the person waking up would not be the same one that went to sleep.

And yes, you can make the argument that all the atoms in our body are replaced eventually, and there's the whole ship of Theseus problem. I am aware. But I am more inclined to believe that I am not the child that my mother hugged 10 years ago than I am to believe that there is anything left of "us" after you've taken someone's mind and change it for something completely different, even if the idea certainty makes me very uncomfortable.
If anything, you'd have to hope that there IS something magic about our consciousness if you're going to do that, because at the very least you could argue that even when you change a person's mind completely, they're still the same person just because of this magical barrier that contains them inside.

Anyway. If there is an objective, determined line that needs to stay uncrossed to avoid that, I sure hope we can someday find out for sure. But I doubt we will ever do so. Maybe we'll get lucky and realize we actually do live in a computer simulation, and realize our minds are completely detached from our bodies. That's best case scenario IMO.

Word.

Woohoohoo. All the time I see believers claiming I "believe" in science. Belief is what they've experienced and remember they're not even allowed doubt. I get it. But lemme tell ya:

Science scorns belief. No scientist "believes" in science. Science helps us overcome belief to arrive at useful information.

No but it's enough to murder tens of thousands of people.

A few sandniggers with AK-47s managed to murder 130 people at a theatre just 2 years ago.

In 100 years, technology will have progressed to such an extent that I bet 1 hacker can bring down the whole power grid on east coast US.

>No scientist "believes" in science
No, but "science enthusiast" like you or your average fedora redditor do.

Why would hacker defence not improve as well?

>slow disintegration of classical forms
>popularization of liberalism, which would eventually lead to the French Revolution
>popularization of atheism/deism
>consequent popularization of sentimentalism to replace religious morality (belief that human beings are naturally good)
>boom of popularity of poets of nature and the sentiments such as William Collins and Thomas Grey
It's pretty obvious. The Enlightenment was not an "age of reason"; the thinkers of that era preferred wit, satire, and appeals to emotion to the scholarship and extended reasoning characteristic of early modern and medieval philosophy.

Wordsworth and Blake are almost inevitable from such developments.

Farming feeds the body, but Homer fed the soul.

Well, every human has an immortal soul, which is why we can be changed yet remain (relatively) unchanged.

Do you know anything about enlightenment and romanticism?