What's some literature that explores the importance of intuition and non-scientific inquiry in understanding the world?
I'm sick of vital ideas being subject to scientific darwinism simply because they do not comprehensibly conform to requirements of supreme materialistic evidence. I'm sick of the dogma of the scientific me(me)thod.
Other urls found in this thread:
amazon.com
twitter.com
Read Nietzsche. The problem is, he loved "science" in the original sense, because he thought the highest calling was to be a philosopher, which means someone who investigates the world and seeks after truth. (Even as an anti-Christian, he admitted to still being pious because he worshipped truth.)
BUT,
For Nietzsche the ideal is the "gay science" (gaya scienza) of the Provençal troubadours. This is a combination of love-of-life with a firm sense of duty and a ceaseless quest for knowledge all in one.
Nietzsche's book "The Gay Science" is both an explanation and example of this method (it also talks about dozens of other things, and there are some really faggy poems and rhymes included).
Sophie World
Is the scientific method included in that definition of science?
(cont)
He hated Darwinism because although he admitted it was factually true (biologically), he knew it could not replace the now-dead Christian answers to the point of human life. If you believe Darwin, why live? Why bother? There's no point.
So Nietzsche's whole philosophical mission was to get people to see their humanity again, and the exceptionalism of being human, WITHOUT recourse to Christianity (+other religions) that basically tell you to give up on this life and hope for the next one.
For N., the way toward being your own man ("becoming who you are") is often thru intellectual inquiry and philosophy –– but not dead science that deals only with numbers, geometry, physical properties, etc. Nietzsche's test for what philosophical questions he would answer was this: I will only consider problems whose solution will affect how I live my life.
It's majestic & human at once. Before reading Nietzsche, I was getting really down about science because I felt that most of my nonreligious friends couldn't think beyond a results table in a scientific paper, or worse, a popular science explanation of the big bang....
See I don't think he believed in the scientific method as in
>hypothesis
>experiment
>results
>new hypothesis
That's too dry a way to discuss how to live your life. It's more like a constant experiment and you're the test subject. He thought making yourself suffer was a good thing, since fear and laziness are the twin obstacles to human greatness.
If you read some of the aphorisms in The Gay Science, you'll find that they're not scientific in our usual sense of the word (no charts, no data, no independently verifiable whatever), but they are intellectually rigorous; some of his insights are so good, you kind of have to admit, wow, he's understanding this perfectly (like one on the different ways that rhetoricians affect their audiences). It's not fluff, but it's also not cold dead useless numberswork that passes for most "science" of the ungay kind
robert anton wilson writes a good bit on this
(OP)
What's the meaning of that image, or is it just "le artistic psuedoscientific, pseudospiritual bullshaite?"
I dunno. I just picked it because it evokes transcending materialism
I remember reading a poem by Whitman that dealt with that. Or was it Yeats? Or both? I'm getting old but other, better read anons will surely know what I'm talking about.
'Wissenschaft' encompasses more fields of knowledge than 'science' does in English, right?
owen barfield's essays
Now THERE'S a mention one doesn't encounter very often on Veeky Forums-- some Barfield titles: Saving the Apprarances and Worlds Apart. Also, he wrote a fine book on Coleridge: What Coleridge Thought. Heck. Read STC's Biographia Literaria while youre at it. It's invaluable.
Read this book, it's amazing. I just finished it and it might be the first time where I am genuinely certain that my mental capacities have been given a major upgrade.
You'll have to buy a used copy.
yeah, I know, right?
OP-follow this guys suggestion
Manly P Hall
Your faggy diary desu.
...
Every time someone asks a question like this it's clear he does not understand the scientific method or much of anything.
...
>Scientistic
Everything by Leibniz ever. He believed that divination is often a quicker way of obtaining truths than a posteriori scientific inquiry. Also Plato's reminiscence theory.
>He believed that divination is often a quicker way of obtaining truths than a posteriori scientific inquiry
This is correct
pick a random fin de sciecle writer.
holy shit just read some philosophy of physics.
We don't even understand the material much less the non-material
>What's some literature that explores the importance of intuition and non-scientific inquiry in understanding the world?
I presume you have read Against Method by Paul Feyerabend?
>I'm sick of vital ideas being subject to scientific darwinism simply because they do not comprehensibly conform to requirements of supreme materialistic evidence. I'm sick of the dogma of the scientific me(me)thod.
If you're going to gather data expect it to be criticized, your data and theories are not above criticism. You can gather data in an unorthodox fashion, abandon materialistic postulates and put out unfalsifiable theories, if you think they're useful for perceiving that data, even though it will trigger Popperians.
Science and criticism must go together for any actual real development to occur, pure formalism and dogmatism are just a dead end.
Become feminist and start understanding where your disbelief of scientific enterprise actually comes from.
Yea "Wissenshaft" is like thoughthood, so really anything to do with thinking. Also Frohliche, which is translated as Gay in english is accurate but another, albiet less accurate translation that removes the homosexual connotation, is Joyful. So for our modern period, it would be better to call it something like "The Joy of Thinking" or something to that effect.
>The joy of thinking
Ewwwww
Kant.
Wow you're an idiot. You know no German. Leave.
le
i'm sick of you people. you do realize you just posted this on a digital, electronic, materialistic, deterministic, science based medium?
Is this what you mean?
I'm sick of Veeky Forums pseuds thinking they're so much more "enlightened" than those gosh-darned scientists.
The true Intellectual knows that knowledge of all forms is valuable, and that all of these forms inform each other.
Read a textbook sometime. You might learn something. If you can read philosophy then reading an introductory textbook should be trivial.
feynman drew first blood
Yes. I'm not denying that science is good for producing technology.
I don't think I'm more enlightened than scientists, I just want to expose myself to things that science is not suited for.
based bucky
Science creates models and programs to act out a specific function in the world, to explain an event in relation to others.
Philosophy tries to explain the landscape, the models, the perception, the relation of act in all this.
Scientists tend to be foolish in one fashion. They create these powerful models, and then they take great pride in them. Then they claim that they did nothing, and it was only these models at work. But of course, that is not how it has to be.
Mathematicians, on the other hand... What do they do?
>I hate that real life isn't like my animes
>what's some literature that will justify my want to live in fictional world with my 2d waifu?
More like less restrictive thought patterns and return to childhood and its intellectual freedom to live.
If you hate your life so much then maybe you should change it instead of getting mad at reality.
That's not the way self-centered undiagnosed internet autism works.
You don't get it. It's the perception and attitude that needs to change in relation to routines that have grown to bind us. Especially in thought of "what can be plausible." or even "what can be acceptable."
I'll be taking a heavy load of DMX tomorrow, so I'm not too scared of shaking things up.
joe rogan srs
Science and technology are two different things. Most great discoveries are not discovered through the scientific method and have nothing to do with science. Although science may refine it later, people naturally refine things anyway.
Do you realize this medium is impossible without Symbol-based constructs?
amazon.com
is what you're looking for
Nietzsche was a "Christian".
Surprised noone has posted Bergson yet. Read Creative Evolution if you can
Kierkegaard too, perhaps. "It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards. A proposition which, the more it is subjected to careful thought, the more it ends up concluding precisely that life at any given moment cannot really ever be fully understood; exactly because there is no single moment where time stops completely in order for me to take position [to do this]: going backwards."
already mentioned