Previous Thread >>25241821Would you be a Utopian? EditionAlternate Edition: Utopians are gay and cringe perfect goody two shoesBack Up Edition: Fuck Utopians>Recommended reading charts (Look here before asking for vague recs):https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/4rAmSZxb>Archive:https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg>Goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg
>>25246401Bakkerbros it's over No God duology neve ever
At any rate, last thread got me thinking. Is Kazuo Ishiguro /sffg/?
>>25246003>So, because contradictions "aren't real" you don't need to hold to even basic logical consistency. And yet you have the balls to criticize others for not having "good arguments."You really don't understand what youre talking about. You can go beg the question too. It wont make my argument any less wrong. I could pose you with a very simple question to break down anything you believe, but the fact your response was a story you concocted about my argument supplanted by words in the form of mere reaction "lol" tells me you don't really know enough for such a thought experiment to be useful on you anyway.And I already know for a fact you havent read Wittgenstein because even most people that do philosophy online havent. So whats the point of me taking you seriously?
>>25245981It doesnt make sense because the "science can make your theory possibly irrelevant in the future" also applies to science, infact its like one of the defining characteristics of science. Also empirical evidence doesnt mean what he thinks it means, even scientists will acknowledge that our deeper knowledge of the brain still doesnt necessarily solve the mind body problem that Descartes proposed back when science had significantly less raw empirical informationWhich is silly, Bakker cant possibly be making such an obvious mistake hence I can only say "Stop begging the question and making empty claims and justify your conclusion" because his paragraphs on their face make zero sense. He must know something we dont that he just for some reason refuses to elaborate on, despite the hoards of information he seems capable of spewing its almost never relevant or logically related (necessary or sufficient for conclusion to be true)
>>25246410>>25246408Kys
>>25246413agreed
More body horror sci-fi like this?
>>25246401the charts in that mega link are fucking aids bro
>>25246441Bad Brains.
>confused greg bear with greg egan
>>25246410>Bakker cant possibly be making such an obvious mistake Read the article. That's exactly what he is saying. His "mechanistic fears" are set up as paradigmaticaly scientific, while anything else is necessarily "intuitionist" (a category which apparently includes "the whole of Continental philosophy," but probably anything based on ancient or medieval thought, non-Western thought, or really anything outside a narrow slice of Anglo-empiricist mechanist scientism). This is the argument. "The Argument," in Neuropath isn't supposed to be a sort of caricature as one might expect. Bakker isn't just following out the implications of a particularly provocative area of thought, he actually sincerely believes in it (fair enough) because of "the Argument" that it alone is scientific, and all the success of technology is evidence for "the Argument" (a ridiculous justification). I don't get why this is hard to believe, his blog, his public responses to other's on his work, etc. all suggest this, and suggest this strategy of continually grabbing random studies across the sciences and random theoretical snippets, weaving them together into a "just-so" story that fits his paradigm, and then taking these "just-so" stories to represent strong evidence of the paradigm.It's not that surprising. The key figures in scientism and New Athiesm tend to make exactly this argument, generally in ways that are even less sophisticated. Bakker isn't guilty of anything worse than Dennett trying to claim he has offered a naturalistic explanation of some one unified phenomenon called "religion," for "to explain is explain away," largely by taking Dawkin's speculative notion of a meme, and applying it to religion, and telling some just-so story about how it *might* explain the diverse set of phenomena labeled "religion" since the Reformation by Western European paradigms. This sort of thing isn't that uncommon.I find the history of it most interesting, to wit, Peter Harrison's Some New World and Charles Taylor's work is quite interesting, particularly the former because it shows how the Anglo-empiricist mindset is shot through with assumptions and assumed definitions that come out of Protestant theology, not looking through a microscope, but assumed to be paradigmatically "scientific" by adherents. Hell, "justification" is itself originally a theological term, now they define knowledge itself in terms of it.
What should I read from Bradbury after liking his short stories?
>>25246408Wittgenstein is assigned reading in most undergrad and graduate survey courses. He isn't exactly a "deep cut."Anyhow, "I have a killer argument, but you cannot understand so I won't give it," and "you haven't read x sage, or if you have and you don't agree he is irrefutable, then you couldn't possibly have understood him," is textbook obscurantism (whether I'd agree with you or not). This is exactly the sort of non-argument appeal to one's special gnosis and the special status of one's preferred sage I used to see endlessly in spaces dedicated to the occult. You know, who is the true ultra sage, Evola, Eckhart, Nietzsche, Guenon? Well, if you disagree with my preferred one you simply couldn't possibly have understood! And no, I cannot explain it to plebians of the soul so I won't bother.I'll just recommend Grayling's take on Wittgenstein (originally its own book). It's from a friendly analytic. And I think it's largely fair and yet points out a number of places where one can have a principled rejection of most of Wittgenstein's thought, even while accepting him as a brilliant diagnostician for finding problems within his own tradition.
>>25246610>Dandelion Wine>Something Wicked This Way Comes
>protagonist's faction is call the Resistance
>try to shitpost>make a typoit's over
What are some books that involve elaborate plotting by an enigmatic AI?Or maybe I shouldn't ask this because it would spoil the story...
Can someone recommend me good Anti-Tolkien fantasy? I've read all of Moorcock, Howard, Wagner, Cook, Erikson, Donaldson, Burroughs, Camp, Smith, Lovecraft. Tried Abercrombie, but reads like a reddit book.
>>25246659You've pretty much read the cream of the crop.
>>25246659LORD bakker
>>25246671You're kidding, right?
>>25246659My first thought was "What was Aragorn's tax policy?"-man. Not the main series as that will never be finished, but the Dunk and Egg short stories are pretty decent.
Has any JLPT-N1-level weeaboo here read this? The Human Livestock Yapoo novel is super-influential in Japan, but has never been translated to English and the translation of both manga adaptations is incomplete.
>>25246671This is embarrassing, Richard.
I'd rather have no prequel then a prequel without a sequel.
>>25246731trvke
>>25246731Fuck you that way you only get 1 book,Alsk if you get the prequel it becomes the first book and the og book becomes a sequel
>>25246484why
>>25246611>I'll just recommend Grayling's take on Wittgenstein (originally its own book). It's from a friendly analytic.I'm not an analytic (would prefer it when I was younger) but I also dont discriminate. Which book in particular or whatever medium is he specifically critical of Witt?
why do people here obsess with baking
>>25246765Kys for replying
>>25246774Theres a Baker people really care about here thats why. I already exposed most of their obsession as retardation the day I read the books for myself and posted the screenshots.
>>25246778why? what did I do wrong?
>>25246780No one reads your posts.
>>25246783got his bum ass
I miss the old Scott...
>>25246781Nothing. /lit/ is filled with schizophrenics and autists who will tell you to kys for the most incomprehensible of reasons. They're like the native fauna, you just have to ignore them.
>"Hello fellow reader, I am glad to learn that you enjoyed my series. Thank you for stopping by."
I feel sorry for insulting bakker again. I like your prose and I like that you tried to make an interesting world despite its derivation of real life history, that was cool. I just don't like your writing bakker
>>25246787Bakkerbros...our blonde beast...what happened???
>>25246765It's currently sold under "Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction." It was originally just called "Wittgenstein." He mostly pushes on the interpretive difficulties with Wittgenstein, and some of the regress problems he is open to. For instance, if the individual cannot secure a way to distinguish error from success, why can the language community? And how does one ever know one is a member of a language community?There are a bunch. He doesn't really challenge Wittgenstein's core presuppositions though, because he is himself an Anglo-empiricist. But the presupposition that human reason is essentially discursive (and so we need a *rule* to fix meaning and to know error) is obviously a pretty big one here. Likewise, with OC, the entire apparatus of the hinge proposition explanation relies on the idea that knowledge necessarily involves discursive justification. This is a definition of knowledge that only appears in the literature in the 20th century (although it has some precursors in empiricism). It is by no means obvious however.So then, here is one issue:If hinge propositions determine truth, and many philosophical traditions reject the hinge propositions that ground Wittgenstein's anthropology and understanding of truth/reason, is what Wittgenstein says true for those traditions?It seems Wittgenstein's view must either be asserted over and above all other traditions, as true in some higher, meta-level sense, or else it is only true for certain varieties of post-Enlightenment thought (in its own terms). Wittgenstein himself doesn't address this, in part because it's unclear if he was aware that the assumption that were dominant to his frame are in fact minority positions throughout the history of philosophy.
>>25246803His laptop's harddrive was a phylactery. When it got destroyed, his soul escaped.
>>25246807So that's why he hates technology (AI)?Still tragic :(
Just read Lucifiers Hammer. Not bad. But not quite great.... I hated the whole HOT FUDGE SUNDAY quip. I looked online to see discussions on it and apparently people just cry that it's a secretly racist book or whatever? Huh? Still a lot of good parts in the book. I liked Footfall more. But man I was pretty scared for the characters right there in the end.
>>25246821AAAAAAHH
So, having now finished it, the mid-way plot reveal that makes it truly fantasy, instead of just historical fiction that takes demons seriously, is neat, and fun, but also the worst part of the book.That isn't to say it's bad. It's just that the first half, which is just straight historical fiction about Girolamo Savonarola and him taking over from the Medici in Florence is more interesting precisely because he is just an incredibly interesting figure.The later stuff is certainly interesting, as a sort of alt-historyish thought experiment of how things could go. Enjoyers of EU4 will probably like it.The ending really rushes up though. The author is a competent writer and captures Renaissance Florence really well, but I feel like more engagement with Renaissance thought and theology could have made this truly great, instead of just a solid read. 3.5 stars, 4.
>>25246803Is Bakker the only fantasy writer with light/sandy hair?
>>25246855stupidest question on /lit/ award
>>25246856nta but thats mean
I vaguely followed the Bakkerspam last thread. Does his entire "deep" philosophy stuff people talk up really amount Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sagan, Dawkins, Bill Nye-tier scientism + nihilism + basic libboomer Drumph panic that contradicts their edgy nihilism?We is he loved here? Reddit I get. This is peak Reddit. Is it just because he triggers foids and is edgy?
>>25246940this anon may as well be bakkerspammer with all these buzzwords
>>25246940Bakker hates AI because it can let people recognize obvious sophistry hiding behind obscurantism:>The key sleight of hand: "mere possibility" doing outsized workThe article's central argumentative gambit is explicit: the mere possibility that BBT might be empirically verified "drags the whole of Continental philosophy into the purview of science." But this is a non sequitur dressed up as a logical consequence. The mere possibility that any theory might be true does not place all rival theories under that theory's jurisdiction. The mere possibility of vitalism being vindicated wouldn't drag chemistry into biology's purview. Possibility claims are cheap — they prove nothing about scope unless you've already assumed a particular metaphysical hierarchy.>Bakker argues BBT destroys the "only game in town illusion" for intentionalism. Fair enough as a point about theoretical possibility. But he doesn't seem to notice that his own argument depends on a symmetric illusion — that mechanistic-eliminativist explanation is the only game in town for evaluating what's "real." He treats the third-person mechanistic paradigm as if it were simply identical with science as such, when it is actually one philosophical interpretation of what science licenses. The move from "neuroscience discovers causal mechanisms" to "intentionality is therefore a cognitive illusion" is not a scientific finding. It's a philosophical thesis about what science is allowed to explain, built on prior commitments.>The article essentially presents the following syllogism: neuroscience shows the brain generates systematic misrepresentations therefore first-person phenomenology is unreliable therefore Continental philosophy is scientifically undermined. But the first premise is not new — the Pyrrhonists, the Madhyamikas, Hume, and Kant all worked extensively with the idea that cognition systematically distorts or fails to access things as they are. What's new is only the mechanism proposed (information constraints). But whether that mechanism actually generates the strong conclusion—that intentionality is eliminated rather than explained or reconstructed—is a philosophical question, not something neuroscience settles.>Interestingly, Bakker opens by accusing Continental philosophers of resisting his arguments because their careers depend on intentionality being real. But his own argument is vulnerable to the inverse: he needs eliminativism to be true for BBT (his original theoretical contribution) to be the revolutionary insight he presents it as. The sociological debunking he applies to others applies to him.>The core problem, in short, is that the article presents a particular philosophical interpretation of neuroscience — eliminative materialism filtered through a very specific view about what reduction means — as if it were neuroscience itself. "Science" in the article is doing the work of "my preferred mechanist metaphysics."
Something everyone here needs to understand is that every post containing a:> —Is AI generated. Short posts are generally okay, as some (myself included) occasionally use them for grammatical or orthographic correction. Large ones, such as the one above me, are pure AI slop. Do not engage; I already have a filter for these.
>>25246990The post above says it is AI—however thoughbeit.Also em dashes are really not that uncommon. That's why it spits them out.
>>25246659Mary Gentle
>>25246659
>>25246982damn this is unironically based and I hate AI.AI is actually surprisingly useful for this type of stuff, i remember a couple years ago when I was in first year philosophy class I couldnt understand the difference between axiom and apriori no matter how much i searched on google it wasnt clear, then I said fuck it and asked AI, and it was the only time ever that i had appreciated AI. I dont know why, but it understands stuff like that (math too) but cant understand social nuances beyond it being hard scripted to not break social norms (which is the exact opposite of understanding social nuances, since social deviants and people who toy with social norms are inherent to the social fabric and what allows a capacity for societal change) AI also sucks at interpretation. When a concept doesn't have a reliable definition, or when you propose a new definition with a combination of words, expressing a unique understanding from your perspective, it just dies, because it lacks any real experience of its own to draw from, its drawing from too many different experiences, which we all do, but we all do with our experience first and foremost sorting the value of other experiences.
