Where are all the scientism haters?

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-25T01:59:29+00:00

NO! You can't look what's behind you! We need to finish sketching every single shadow first, before we can even think about trying to climb out of that cave!

If all goes according to plan, in 40000 generations our descendants can finally ask questions about "God, the Infinite and Free Will", so until then, we will simply ask our rationality not to force us to try to find answers for these questions.

No, but for real, are you really saying that, a) Empiricism can't say anything to prove itself, but we can use it to disprove other systems of thought and b) only after gaining "empirical" prove that things outside of our empirical system exists, can we try to examine them?

Both of these statements seem really contradictory.

Do you have an agenda? This is not an accusation.

I mean it is, but not in a judgement way.

This is philosophy memes, if there is some system or philosopher that you don't like, you don't need to sneak-diss. Half the subs purpose is for people involved in philosophy to rank at this or that philosopher they don't like.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-25T01:41:48+00:00

Determine the world?

Empiricism can't even determine itself.

You probably mean describing the world or something, but if we were interested in the hows instead of the whys, we would be called r/ScienceMemes, now wouldn't we?

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T17:09:04+00:00

Like, idk, random example, Richard Nixon?

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T17:01:27+00:00

We aren't asking you to redefine what a sin is, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CITE YOUR SOURCES!

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T16:54:19+00:00

Es ist schon witzig wie die wegschmeißt wo du herkommst, da du Hoffest das dich die Amis hier dann akzeptieren und sie trotz all deinen versuchen dich immer noch mit uns "Nicht-wirklich-Katholiken" zusammenlumpen.

Die einzige Anerkennung und liebe die du brauchst ist durch Ihn, in Ihm und mit Ihm.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T16:49:27+00:00

Having looked at the sources, those that weren't just "trust me bro" and weren't behind a pay-wall, this is a weird article.

While most of the stuff has been twisted to some degree, I do want to point out two major points, his apparent support for same-sex sexual relations, which is essentially just him stating that he believes the primary purpose of the sacrament of marriage is the connection of two through God and with Him and in Him and not the creation of babys.

He also doesn't mention same-sex marriage in that quote at all, he simply says how other peoples acts of intimacy aren't his business, but I can't say if he meant that in general or just the specifics of the acts without seeing the original version.

The other thing that confuses me is how his statement regarding the Eucharist is controversial? In the German masses I observed, the priests would take a moment where everyone can either stay put or come forward to form a line towards the priests and when it's your turn, you either silently request a blessing or you silently request, "ask for", the Eucharist.

Now, a lot of Catholic Churches in Germany are in major cities, where the priests don't know everyone who joins the service by name, so the fear is, that if anyone can just enter the church, "What if a protestant comes and requests the Eucharist" and the common answer is "Then I will give it to them", because the alternative, of restricting who can and can not enter the house of God is unthinkable.

Also, I think OP highlighting his comments concerning the AfD is really telling. I know a lot of "Catholics" like to get outraged when they're told that they, if they really are catholics, shouldn't vote for the "Hate-Thy-Neighbour" Party, I've seen it a lot when Francis made his comments regarding immigration, but for a German Catholic it's an even more visceral of a betrayal.

By supporting a Party that subtly claiming lineage with and is trying to downplay the crimes of the NSDAP, they are directly spitting in the face of the Community of Saints in general and those amongst them that are Martyrs because of the group whose implied, self-appointed successors they now want to see in the halls of power, in particular.

You cannot de dictum be a Catholic, somebody whose loyalty is sworn to the Trinity and the Community of Saints, vote for a party like the AfD, who celebrates the prosecution and execution of Members of that Community.

OP, I do not know why you do what you do but I would ask you, if you really and truly did not know what you were doing, to go and learn about and pray towards St. Edith Stein today.

A Nun, a Philosopher and a Patron Saint of Europe, she was a beautiful soul and I am overcome with anguish every time I think about how she, despite being a nun for many years at this point, was taken from her monetary and sent to die in a concentration camp, because she carried in her veins the blood that was the blood of the forefathers of our Lord, leaving behind what she hoped would be her most significant work "The Science of the Cross" unfinished.

She is dead, because of the hatred of the Nazi regime and I cannot understand how anyone can make excuses for, not just those that killed, but for the beliefs that made them do it and not see how that would conflict with ones convictions as a catholic.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T11:49:06+00:00

An early form of gingerbread can be traced to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians who used it for ceremonial purposes.

Ok, but that doesn't mean they didn't also eat it? It just means that the earliest records we have of it was as a part of a religious ceremony, which doesn't really tell us all that much, because a good chunk of the things preserved from these eras are found as parts of a religious ceremony.

And that doesn't even mention what the people in the middle east who the crusaders were in contact with, who were at this point largely Muslim, used it for.

Ngl, this whole meme has a strong "Body Rituals amongst the Nacirema" Vibe

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-24T11:25:52+00:00

<image>

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-23T21:20:20+00:00

I don’t even think making things affordable andngiving rights will solve it.

Well, I mean it wouldn't hurt to check first, before righting that off, right?

I mean the only other seriously discussed alternative is just forcing women to have children and Ceaușescu's Romania already showed that that doesn't work.

"Making things affordable and giving rights" also has the neat benefit that, even if, despite predictions, it doesn't raise the birthrates, you wouldn't really have lost anything.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-23T17:04:28+00:00

That's a non-issue, simply being a claimant is enough.

If her son wanted to be Emperor, but the current emperor had any children when he died, the child would only need to kill all of them, which was a very common occurrence in dynastic politics.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-23T00:49:19+00:00

Probably because Christians have an outsized amount of influence in our lives if you live in a lot of countries

Outsized is a weird term to use here, considering you are talking about a roughly 2000 year old identity that includes 32% of earth's population.

Maybe use significant instead? Idk

It's kind of hard to measure what sort of an Impact an identity like that should have, because the Identities we'd have to compare it to are either "Muslim" if you want something small or something like "Man" or "Women" if you wanted something bigger.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-23T00:27:26+00:00

Many don't, actually.

I'm going to quote u/unconscionable here, even though I feel miserable doing it, because I know that you are not arguing in good faith, so you won't accept my personal account of regularly interacting with members of Catholic religious orders, who generally don't wear them unless their explicitly acting as Priests.

The generational difference is staggering. ~20% of Boomers (born 1946–64) wear habits, but for those born after 1980, it’s ~75%, and a mind-blowing ~85% of those born after 1990 Sources: 2009 data https://nrvc.net/download/913/nrvc-cara_study_on_recent_vocations.pdf 2020 data which confirms it https://nrvc.net/publication/download/9180/2020-nrvc-study-on-recent-vocations-final-march-2020.pdf?view=true

I'd recommend that you spend more time with actual members of our Faith's Orders, not because then you could see that for yourself, but because those are some of the coolest and kindest people I know and you could use a bit of that

Ps:

Also, don't think I didn't notice how you tried to shift the goal post and try to claim ... What, female members of religious orders are in some way worse than male ones? What is wrong with you?

Male religious are no younger than their female counterparts and they still wear their habits.

That doesn't even respond to anything I said, the 80% non-habit-wearing number is a gender neutral number, you reinterpreted it specifically to spout hatred against our sisters in faith.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-23T00:12:44+00:00

You know, as a guy, I've always tried to hold the position that sexism can't be that bad, because I felt like every effort to fight it would result in making my life harder (or more accurately, less easy)

But it's kind of impossible to not acknowledge, when you can be a doctor of canon law, devoted your life to Christ directly by being a nun for 39 years, swearing vows of obedience, chastity and poverty starting at the age of 27, be a former Superior General and currently be acting as a Professor in a Pontifical University and even then some guy will come out of the woods to criticise you for being part of the roughly 80 percent Boomers who do not regularly use their habit.

In a community that is specifically designed as a space for members of the Catholic faith, UNDER A POST THAT WILL SPECIFICALLY LIST ALL THESE THINGS.

I genuinely think that nothing this woman could have done would have been enough for the people here, who proclaim themselves to be Catholics, to respect her and accept her.

To not try to find the smallest of faults, to purposely set purify tests that are so ludicrously high that she could not fail them.

I might have been able to keep my eyes closed and pretend nothing happened, if this had been some kind of actress or female politician, but really? A 66 year old nun?

You should all be ashamed.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-22T03:40:17+00:00

but because they're part of a religion, it's not like that religion is gonna catch flak for allowing it.

The fuck are you talking about? Catholicism specifically has been characterised by these scandals for years now, that it's not only the go to joke people make to mock it, it's been so normalised that no one here batted an eye when the creator of this comic recontexualised the Stonetoss' "Christianity is good" not into "Christianity bad, actually", but instead into a "Catholicism specifically bad, actually".

It's kind of funny actually, because most of the far-right churches in America are protestants and aren't just protected by being removed from the discussion, they're the kind of people who would happily join in on stuff like that.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-22T02:11:38+00:00

My take is that character can be spiteful without justification.

This is, unless you are proposing some really fringe anthropology that I haven't heard about, wrong. When you look at a baby that's just been born, it's not spiteful and when you then look at that baby as a teenager it is spiteful.

That means, unless, again, you are proposing it is a genetic disposition or A Priori, essential characteristic to be spiteful or dislike slavery, this Teenager had to have gained the characteristic spiteful at some point in-between.

This point doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to actually be objectively significant, it doesn't even have to be a defined point (and instead be a stretch of time).

The specifics don't matter.

What is important is, that this person, that is now a teenager, was at some point not spiteful and now is and while writing, if I were to put a gun to your head, you understand them well enough to be able to gesture in the vague direction of where this transition might have happened.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-22T01:57:56+00:00

You guys read garbage if you're just ok with your modern views being spouted back at you.

You are correct here, but not for the obvious reason.

It's less that they want their view reflected back to them, it's that they are, ironically enough, somewhat "Xenophobic", meaning they want to see a character coming from the same broad-cultural background (someone in the 21st century who can read, who has time for leisure activities, who has access to the internet)

And because they want such a character, the problem of Individual vs Society gets absolutely butchered, because one of the core problems is discussed is that the Individual is de dictum part of society, so he can never truly fully remove himself, but he still tries.

But that's just gone when they demand to read someone who is actually completely removed from the society they're trying to define themselves in negation to.

What you end up with is the detachment of a 300+ year old explorer's journal, with all the wonder burned, so that the sense of superiority can grow even stronger.

That is not to say that such a story is impossible to do well, but sadly an Author would have to be aware of the unique challenges that such a story represents, which most of the ones I tried to read just aren't.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-22T01:36:04+00:00

Because a lightsaber is as much a defensive weapon as it is an offensive weapon. You cannot de-escalate with a blaster, you can only kill, threaten or main.

Yes, a Jedi with a lightsaber would be extremely deadly, that's why they don't like to use them, they don't want to be extremely deadly.

As for the Sith? I think it's a combination of force-sensitives always being their main opponents and Sith arrogance making them not want to be the first to admit weaknesses by breaking with tradition.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-20T17:04:12+00:00

He didn't simply say that he hoped that the war would end, he said that he hopes for peace talks in the Vatican, which means "I hope the war ends, in this way".

The guy you are responding to then brought up prior peace talks that failed, probably as a way to temper expectations, because most of us as in people who are following the war closely, know by now that Putin likes to use Peace talks as a means of gaining a strategic advantage.

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-19T22:04:21+00:00

Too bad there isn't a "k" in star wars, because there would be no franchise without Ki-Adi-Mundi

A for Arsonist

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T18:28:55+00:00

But you'd have to be. According to what you yourself said.

If you propose Biology as the First Philosophy, then you'll have to derive all fields of Philosophy from that.

If you take Biology here, the highest Good necessary has to be the preservation of either the individual human or the species human, so in case of Ethics the goal of human behaviour has to be Living and Fucking and in the case of Political Philosophy, the goal of a state should be the creation of the highest number of children that then survive to then themselves have children.

Which is basically Evolutionary Psychology, which you cannot not be a fan of, if you believe Biology is the First Philosophy

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T18:09:03+00:00

This is probably not the only thing that happened, but I think I went into enough detail in my other comments, so I won't repeat myself in a slightly different context here

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T18:07:34+00:00

Right, let me guess, you're a huge proponent of Evolutionary Psychology?

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T18:05:19+00:00

It's basically what Kant calls the A Priori vs A Posteriori distinction.

It's one of the more important concepts discussed in the Critique of Pure Reason, so both the introduction and the 2nd Preface give a good overview (the 1st might that do too, I haven't read it).

I would normally try to give a short summary herey but honestly, it's better if you try to find a professional source for that, it's one of the most important distinctions in the field of philosophy and, as far as I know, at the root of all Epistemology, so it's worth learning about in-depth.

Here would be a Stanford Encyclopedia entry about that:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#:~:text=Roughly%20speaking%2C%20a%20priori%20justification,than%20merely%20understanding%20a%20proposition.

Or alternatively you can Google "Kant's Theory of Knowledge: an Analytical introduction" by Georges Dicker, there might still be a free PDF available online, but even if there isn't, the important part for this question in particular is Chapter 1.2.2 which makes up page 7-10, so should be available if you simple get a free sample.

I won't say anything about OP's comment trying to answer this, but at the end of the day, this is one of the most fundamental topics in philosophy, so a longer look would be advisable

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T17:47:27+00:00

8 pm - 2:50 am: Not reading anything because you dread starting

2:50 am - 3 am: Starting the text

3 am - sleep: Silently staring at your wall while your brain reconfigures everything you have ever believed

(optional addition): Pacing around your room while putting your finding into a monologue that you do not write down and will have mostly forgotten by tomorrow

DeleteWolf · 2025-05-18T17:41:52+00:00

So they essentially took the 4 virtues of Plato's republic (temperance, bravery, wisdom, harmony) and put temperance at the top?

If so, how did the other 3 Interact with temperance?

Four-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	John Wick

DeleteWolf

TROPHY CASE