One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first...

>One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT. - Thomas Ligotti

STEMlords BTFO

who are some other writers that despise STEMfags?

> THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT
A child could tell you that this is subjective. What a pseud.

you're just not conscious enough to realize that fact, stemfag

This thomas ligotti lad sure does sound like a bitter faggot. Who hurt him?

his calculus 1 class that he got a D in

>My opinions are facts because ur dumb

welcome to the liberal arts

Perhaps, but then stemfags would be making extremely subjective assertions, which is something they seem to hate that others do and claim they are not doing it.

He is not saying it is a fact because that user is dumb, just that there is a certain fact and that the other user is dumb.

A child could also tell you that the sun goes around the moon, or that horses are big dogs.

I make subjective assertions all the time, but reread op's quote. It explicitly says it is the truth and anyone being objective says the world is unimpressive. That is indefensible.
"Everything is lame" is not a fact no matter how sad you personally are, faggot.

>Thomas Literallywhotii

This is a total sophism.

First he starts out by talking about how impressive scientists find the universe and then uses an obvious statement ("THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.")
with the intent of ridiculing a scientists' excitement about scientific discovery.

There's nothing innately impressive about it but this doesn't make it silly for us to be impressed by it. The last sentence would be a rebuttal to arguments that propose that the universe is inherently impressive. Being impressed is clearly a human state of mind.

>A child could tell you that this is subjective.

that's precisely his point, it's why he uses the term "innately" and says "as a concession to objectivity" and says "we know it is possible to become excited about anything." he is saying that there is nothing objectively and innately impressive about the universe, that anyone who finds the universe impressive does so for their own subjective reasons. however, many scientists talk and act as if the universe is indeed objectively impressive and that everyone should share their enthusiasm and it is this that ligotti objects to.

in other words, you need to work on your reading comprehension

>THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.
How can this Thomas Ligotti person be an artist and at the same time say a thing like this?
What a miserable cunt.

except he goes on to say the exact opposite later in the book

Pseud

except he says the exact opposite of THAT in his NEXT book

pseud

No, he doesn't

No real scientist argues that anything is "objectively impressive." They try to share their enthusiasm, sure, but that's what every human does with things they enjoy. Ligotti, on the other hand, IS explicitly arguing that the world is "objectively unimpressive," which is a pants-on-head retarded stance without any kind of argument that could possibly back it up. I really don't know how you can support an argument so baseless and so clearly grounded in Ligotti being a depressed bitch.

Something can have a subjectively innate quality you retard

thanks for agreeing

Absolutely not. At least not in the sense of being impressive or unimpressive, because that quality is by definition based on a subjective reaction of a person to the object. The Grand Canyon might impress me but not you. I can call it impressive, but it'd be incredibly fucking stupid of me to claim it is objectively impressive for everyone on earth.

>No real scientist argues that anything is "objectively impressive."

so they agree with ligotti then, when he says that there is "nothing innately impressive about the universe"?

>Ligotti, on the other hand, IS explicitly arguing that the world is "objectively unimpressive,"

wait, isn't that what you said scientists think, in your first sentence?

are you relying on some difference between "not objectively impressive" and "objectively unimpressive" because there isn't a lot of space there. also, if there is any distinction, ligotti doesn't say the universe is objectively unimpressive, he says there is nothing objectively impressive about it, or that it is only subjectively impressive.

See
Retard

pretty sure i'm being trolled now, but just for the sake of argument, innate qualities are those that are naturally built-in to their possessor. for instance, the capacity for language is (arguably) innate in people, because people are born with that capacity.

so, if the universe has impressiveness innately, then it comes into existence with that quality. in that case, it cannot be subjective, because the universe existed before the subjects (e.g. people) in that universe existed. so, its impressiveness existed before the subjects did and so cannot depend on those subjects, as subjectivity implies.

so, at least in this case, innates entails objectivity.

No. I'm claiming that whether or not something is impressive is entirely subjective because it is based on an individual's reaction to it. You cannot say anything at all is objectively impressive or objectively unimpressive because both are subjective qualities.
Ligotti is arguing that people who are excited about the universe are factually wrong. He claims that saying everything sucks is "a concession to objectivity," but really he's just asserting his opinion and his subjective experience as fact.

That guy is almost definitely just a troll and is not the guy you were replying to

well, at least in this quote he doesn't say that "everything sucks" or anything like it. he just says that the universe isn't objective impressive, which sounds exactly like what you're saying. if you're arguing about something else that he says elsewhere, then ok

Non ironically have come to have STEM fags after 2 years at Uni

Mostly just tired of listening to them talk about politics. They're so obsessed with muh facts that their debating skills come down to memorising details of electoral systems or weird partisan talking points and then throwing them at you like they mean anything. So tiresome

*hate

>and then throwing them at you like they mean anything
but they do

They mean something but they aren't significant like STEM students tend to think they are. Electoral college/High court vote on Brexit are great examples - anybody with a very limited understanding of politics knows that neither will affect the ultimate outcome of the election/referendum, but because STEMs are obsessed with 'facts' of that nature they can't see these obvious things.

>They're so obsessed with muh facts that their debating skills come down to memorising details of electoral systems or weird partisan talking points and then throwing them at you like they mean anything.
Idk if the idea that debate ought to be based on fact - insofar as that's possible in a field like politics - is unique to STEMmers. See: the enlightenment.

Clearly my point was that 'facts' as they see them are a very partial and incomplete account of the situation

I haven't read the rest of his writing so I can't confirm either way.
If he's saying everything is objectively unimpressive, then he is pretty clearly wrong and being hypocritical.
If he's saying nothing is objectively impressive, then he's not arguing with anyone and even if he told this to the "stemfags" op considers him blasting here they would agree.
Either way he honestly just comes across as whiny. I thought Conspiracy Against the Human Race might be an interesting read in the future but if it's this kind of half-assed "I'm sad so people who aren't must just be posturing" pseud shit the whole time I won't bother.

The electoral college literally changed the outcome of this election and the 2000 election. How can you argue that it isn't significant?

Can you read? I said "aren't significant like STEM students tend to think they are" not "aren't significant".

He could be talking about people changing their vote once their district votes for a candidate. The popular vote is the opinion of the national community but the electoral college is closer to the most local possible communities deciding the president. If a community votes for a candidate their elector is obligated to vote for that candidate. Something anti-EC don't understand is that it is important how the communities decide on their elector, gerrymandering is the largest source of corruption in elections.

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean.
Like, say, somebody citing the total number of electoral college votes when it's not really relevant to the discussion?

Why niggas ITT sperging out over the quote, I think it's quite relatable but also something unique to natural scientists from my experience. Never heard of a compeng/compsci/eng/math prof gush like those fags except for that one idealistic math professor of mine back in the day and NB *she* was in her early thirties.

>using the world literally to add emphasis to something
Honestly just kill yourself. Disgusting millennial slug.

Forgot to mention that even though I am a stemfag I see your point in . A lot of them are just turbo-autists who find a social group that accepts them on reddit, then go way too far overboard by basing their entire personality on things reddit likes and seeing things reddit dislikes as evils that must be destroyed at all costs.

He's been clinically depressed for decades, probably as a result of some sort of chemical thing in his brain. Damn good horror writer though.

That's honestly one of the only coherent arguments I've heard in favor of it. That being said, I feel like since the system was put in place individual mobility has greatly increased. The number of people that spend their entire lives in the place they grew up is much, much smaller than it ever was, and that has to have some serious effects on the cohesiveness of a "local community."
After my siblings and I went off to college, for example, my parents moved to a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, and now on paper I belong to that community. But I only live there during winter breaks (not even the summer), I am by no means a part of the community, and I couldn't give less of a fuck what the inbred mouthbreathers of the community think, yet my vote is drowned in theirs. If one of these hillbillies moves to Los Angeles, the same thing happens to him, and I don't think that's how a republic should operate. I think a national election should be decided by the national community, but I can see where you're coming from.
I'd also agree gerrymandering is a huge deal but one that no elected officials will voluntarily fix. I have no idea how that can be stopped at all.

>One cringes to hear
Oh I get it when someone famous writes like this its intellectual but im a tipping turbofedora

fuck this world man

>No real scientist argues that anything is "objectively impressive."

Of course they do. Why the fuck would they pursue objective science if they didn't?

>HAHA, WHAT A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS ACTUALLY BEING PASSIONATE ABOUT THINGS. DON'T THEY KNOW NOTHING MATTERS LMAO?
Wow, great post.

Also
>eggheads
Is this guy 12?

>scientists make great contributions to literature
>writers make no contributions to science

lol ok

Nah what Ligotti is talking about I think is scientists desperately feigning awe at dry fucking shit because of cognitive dissonance; Niggas know they fucked up with their life choices so they try to recreate childhood wonder in an utterly sterile and boring environment which looks ridiculous to a critical personality like Ligotti. Who knows, maybe they do experience genuine wonder, I'm not one to judge. I can imagine a turboautist a la Heisenberg genuinely meaning what he said but at the end of the day it's still cringe because you know he can't get laid.

And that's that.

>significant
>part of every US election ever
pick one

He isn't critical at all. The only people trying to "recreate childhood wonder" are the fantasists writing fiction.

Something is objectively impressive if ANYONE finds it subjectively impressive. It saddens me that some people don't understand or accept this.

>it's still cringe because you know he can't get laid
Yes user, you tell Heisenberg he's a loser as you shitpost on a lebanese kite racing forum
Ligotti is depressed and has fallen into the trap of thinking everyone else must have an equally shitty outlook on life and just be posturing if they don't seem like it

It's ironic, but Ligotti seems to be struggling extremely hard with the fact-value distinction while criticizing others for the same.

I don't really want to get involved in this whole Thomas Ligotti discussion going on, but I'm honestly really bothered that many people view stemlords as the face of intellectualism. I'm majoring in a stem field (EECS) but I'm really annoyed by the fact that people are so enamored by the concept of being "stem" that they base their entire identity on their perception of what they think someone intelligent looks like. If I were to ask a lot of these kids for their thoughts on any of the humanities, they would probably un-ironically say something like, "I only deal in facts, I don't have time for silly stories when I'm on the quest for truth."

>they would probably un-ironically say something like, "I only deal in facts, I don't have time for silly stories when I'm on the quest for truth."

Even the professors of STEM fields think that. Even the pop-sci garbage people like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins thinks that.

Chemistry major here. I am aware that most people do not share my enthusiasm for chemistry, and I do not believe that any of it is objectively impressive, nor do I expect it to impress others. None of those thoughts dampen my enthusiasm for chemistry. I don't know why I like it, I just like it. I hope I can make a living doing it, but if not I'll do something else.

I should qualify that by "everyone" I mean the average person who really doesn't have any "intellectual" pursuits in their daily life. I think part of the reason that things like this are happening might be that STEM fields are being entered just because of job security, and the idea of an archetypal "engineer" as a natural thinker and problem solver might be a thing of the past. For example, when I think of an engineer of the past, I think of my friend's uncle who dropped out of CalTech to work on the electrical and computer systems of tanks for the military, and now does freelance things on the side for anything that interests him.

To be fair bill Nye took his criticisms to heart, admitted he didn't know much about philosophy and then read about it starting with the Greeks .

The rest of them are trash though.

This...but I have a friend who just finished law school and another who is about to finish his MBA at Wharton and they both do the same thing with facts. They both love the Clintons.

So that behavior is not limited to STEM fags, though I can certainly see how STEM education may tend to make people prone to that sort of foolishness.

Did he actually? That's pretty respectable if so; someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson would never do anything that actually took any sort of intellectual fervor because he's so satisfied and complacent in being respected by pop-sci nobodies.

Probably just popular with pseuds

Good stuff.

Yes, you're probably right.

>Love the Clintons
>Base arguments on facts

Well, Ligotti did change his major back in community college due to unknown reasons.

Probably because he couldn't cut it in the math and science prereqs for whatever he was studying.

>People actually ridiculing the use of facts

What kind of chucklefuck board is this

Nobody is ridiculing facts. We are ridiculing the people who think facts are the only thing that matters.

Well, they're right. These are the people we have to thank for everything we use in the modern world - even language.

Veeky Forums is inherently anti-intellectual.

People aren't calculators, a whole part of the human condition is emotion and feeling and to deny that in favor of blind rationalism is folly

>my feelings matter more than objective reality
this is why feminism exists

>there is nothing innately impressive about the universe

What a fucking fedora. Completely blind and ignorant to the subject he is talking about, self-loving, pointlessly cynical, probably loves hearing himself talk.

>Never heard of a compeng/compsci/eng/math prof gush like those fags except for that one idealistic math professor of mine back in the day and NB *she* was in her early thirties.
Because they're boring cunts and exactly the type of people that shouldn't be doing this. Math is objectively beautiful and anyone who disagrees is a psued

>there is nothing INNATELY impressive about the universe or anything in it

Which is not only 'true', but a truism.

Ligotti sounds like an edgy high-schooler

>my feelings matter more than objective reality

Well, obviously they do. Do you think knowing facts about objective reality make you feel good?

>>>/unemployed/

>triggered but doesn't know what to say so user goes with a baby boomer tier bant

checkt n rekt

>respected ny society

The universe is all that exists which is impressive to me.

>From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward
Look up Krafft - Ebbing,
>"Krafft-Ebing considered procreation the purpose of sexual desire and that any form of recreational sex was a perversion of the sex drive. "With opportunity for the natural satisfaction of the sexual instinct, every expression of it that does not correspond with the purpose of nature—i.e., propagation,—must be regarded as perverse."[2] Hence, he concluded that homosexuals suffered a degree of sexual perversion because homosexual practices could not result in procreation. In some cases, homosexual libido was classified as a moral vice induced by the early practice of masturbation.[3] Krafft-Ebing proposed a theory of homosexuality as biologically anomalous and originating in the embryonic and fetal stages of gestation, which evolved into a "sexual inversion" of the brain. In 1901, in an article in the Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen (Yearbook for Intermediate Sexual Types), he changed the biological term from anomaly to differentiation."
, he's famous for calling gay people perverts. Liggoti is an idiot who thinks people that can appreciate life are perverts.

>MUH CHEMICALS
This has to stop.

It isn't a valid argument when people spew shit about having no free will because
>dude we're all just chemicals lmao
But in the case of clinical, diagnosed depression, there is an actual documentable imbalance in the brain that causes it. An often curable imbalance.

>ridiculing the people who think facts are the only thing that matters.
>I am not listening because it hurts my feelings

I agree but Ligotti is pretty spooked.

lol someones never studied depression.

I'm against all STEMtards purely based on the fact none of them study the Philosophy of Science which should be required for all students of any science.

>Bright academic future
>Respected by society