Philosophy BTFO in under 5 minutes

Shouldn't this shit fly directly at odds with humanist philosophies that atheists like to jerk off so much?

>dude the cosmos is like, all there is haha
fuck sagan

Their views are often contradictory because they are ironically a mixture of emotion with “epic science!!”

wow scientific modelling is able to scale things non-anthropocentrically i guess that's the end of human thought

literally the beginning of the second volume
>In endless space countless luminous spheres, round each of which some dozen smaller illuminated ones revolve, hot at the core and covered over with a hard cold crust; on this crust a mouldy film has produced living and knowing beings: this is empirical truth, the real, the world. Yet for a being who thinks, it is a precarious position to stand on one of those numberless spheres freely floating in boundless space, without knowing whence or whither, and to be only one of innumerable similar beings that throng, press, and toil, restlessly, and rapidly arising and passing away in beginningless and endless time. Here there is nothing permanent but matter alone, and the recurrence of the same varied organic forms by means of certain ways and channels that inevitably exist as they do. All that empirical science can teach is only the more precise nature and rule of these events. But at last the philosophy of modern times, especially through Berkeley and Kant, has called to mind that all this in the first instance is only phenomenon of the brain, and is encumbered by so many great and different subjective conditions that its supposed absolute reality vanishes, and leaves room for an entirely different world-order that lies at the root of that phenomenon, in other words, is related to it as the thing-in-itself to the mere appearance.

Attached: 1549865005972.jpg (551x650, 169K)

It's a good thing that Sagan is dead.
Otherwise he'd be tempted to turn into a copy le ebin science negra Tyrone and post the most retarded shit ever on his Twitter.

>real life is on the ground, people should look around themselves not up into nothingness
Why? When you see the earth like that it really reinforces my views about why bother giving a shit about anything? And no, I don't mean in an edgy or nihilistic way, I literally mean "what is the fucking point, I might as well aim for the path of least resistance like I'm doing now".

Space is fake and gay.

>hahaha bro the earth is small like just stop caring and be nice lmao

Yes, and?

literally nothing exists outside of my bedroom

Attached: 1553700747558.png (680x588, 526K)

>something something spheres
>something something Kant
>something something thing-in-itself
>something something phenomenons
Schopenhauer was such a useless cunt

he's constructing a philosophical standpoint in the video. He's relating the knowledge of the vastness of the universe to humility and morality, and handing ways to deal with the realisation of our own insignificance.

>somehow being small in the only thing in existence means anything means you suddenly have no meaning
Where did this meme come from?

His point is retarded. The vastness of the universe is in no way relevant in relation to neither ethical nor unethical behavior.
Suppose that the universe consisted only of our galaxy, would the ethical value of a human action in this hypothetical universe be any different from the same action but in the real universe?

Imagine my shock that Yea Forums doesn't have the attention span to watch an entire 3 minute video. Half of the people in this thread are bitching about his point of view being nihilistic, which contradicts the message near the end.

You brainlets have had your attention spans ruined by the internet, just like every other normie drooling at their smartphones.

To be clear though, Sagan is wrong, and people aren't more worth caring about because of the scale of the thing.

I agree with you that size should not correlate with moral responsibilty or ethical value. It's the godless nature of the universe out of which the need for a morality that' not based in ideology arises

itt: people who didn't watch the video
how is it that you fucknuts are so willfully stupid?

Most people here skim text quickly and have shit comprehension. Audio is an anathema to people who can't parse and reflect on an idea at the same time.

comprehended this idea once a while ago
pretty crazy experience

Attached: link.jpg (156x163, 3K)

i watched the video, he's just explaining his own philosophical standpoint, what more is there to understand?

Yes. It would be excruciating if I were more of a faggot or a pleb, but it's undeniable that, (we've fallen far since the 60s and 70s wrt) with our sense of popular philosophy having turned to either "New Age" pseudophilosophy or "New Atheist" reductive scientism, any time some one points out that these are deeply relevant to philosophy they're shit on.
Again, plebs want carnivorous and carnivalesque philosophies that excite the obscene sense of sacred, mythological horror. It's no surprise that basic groping in the direction of wonder at your place in "the order of things," etc is totally foreign to them, it's just not the experience afforded to their type.

no, not at all. You're confusing humanism with geo/anthropocentrism it seems. Humanism merely aims to ammeliorate human inter-connectedness, and our presence within this vast universe. It ttries to step away from religious dogma to build a more moral world based in empiricism.

since Sagan isn't Yea Forums approved, go read Schopenhauer.

Your beliefs don't matter, your affiliations and groupings don't matter, not even being human matters.

A speck of dust drifting in space, so what if in your mind it seems so much more important. So what. It doesn't change the fact that nothing humans have ever done or will ever do will change anything substantial at all. We're ants swimming against the tide of tap water thinking we're spitting in the face of god, when we're not even a millisecond's worth of a thought in the eyes of the universe.

I can do anything I want and nothing at all and none of you will ever have anything to say that makes me not do that.

>space big me small mean it not matter
learn to think critically

*gets arrested*

People hate on this but wrap it up in a new veil with different words and suddenly it's Yea Forums approved buddhist writings.

Seriously some of you lads are absolutely retarded.

Why does it matter how "small" the earth is in the grand scheme of things? You can't even verify for yourself what anything Sagan, or any scientist, says about space. You take what they say as religious fact and let it rule you. Descartes or Newton were religious but they didn't let it rule them. You should expect something higher of yourself, hold yourself to a higher standard than base nihilism. The man who dissects everything in life down to rational scientific facts is what Nietzsche calls the Socratic man, the type who sterilizes life of all meaning and purpose. Our civilization since the enlightenment has loved to over analyze life, that's why "meaning" is something to be looked down on by the modern multitude. The select man rises about the multitude and expects something better of himself. Human culture and civilization are just that: human, not a fixed stock of nihilistic scientific facts.

>Sagan was a nihilist
Imagine being this small-brained.

Science is nihilism.

>learn to think critically
I am, stop being a small brained retard and pretending you're a big brained one.

>You can't even verify for yourself what anything Sagan, or any scientist, says about space
Look in the sky at night, what do you see? Stars. As miniscule and numerous as they are to us, imagine standing on one of them and looking at earth.

You don't need to go into space to know earth is a speck of dust in space.

The absolute state of Yea Forums in 2k19.

What did the ancient Egyptians see? or the chinese?

The wrong thing. This is why they're dust and the west rules the actually-existing intellectual landscape.

History is the rise and fall of civilizations. The West will eventually be dust too, and its science with it. Man sees what he wants to see, and every civilization sees the world differently. As the schizoautist said in one of his threads a while ago "the brain is not a funnel, it's a projector"

There's sufficient proof to believe the stars are stars. It's not the village elder telling you it's one of the gods, it's many different people, from many different countries all saying the same thing and posting substantiating evidence.

Why do I get the feeling you're one of those retards who believes mysticism and faith are valid proof of anything?

How is a multitude of wisemen telling you the stars are fallen angels any different to a multitude of scientists telling you the stars are burning spheres of plasma?

One is a bunch of guys who's only claim to authority is being really old.

The other is a network of hundreds of thousands of individuals, competing, cooperating and racing to discover the mysteries of the universe using technology that improves every other year.

Gee, I wonder who I'm more likely to listen to...

The only thing that changes is the number. Every man in the village of 50 people listens to the elder, and every man in a nation of 60 million people listens to the scientists. Religion and science are the same thing, but the former is for the small, the latter is for the many. It was the same in ancient Greece; as the population of the cities grew so did the people turn away from religion towards science. In the huge depopulation of the Roman empire during its decline people once again turned back to religion. The city of Rome before its decline was the biggest city in Europe until the 19th century, right when Europeans were abandoning religion for science again.

I am actually laughing. Your thought is the exact same thought as 90% of “deep thinkers” who have never read a book in their life. Go on some shithole like Yea Forums and you will see people espousing this exact same outlook. It’s born out of pseudo intellectualism, you aren’t big brained at all. Any even averagely brained person could question how spatial distance carries any relevance to human existence

The mark of a brainlet is thinking religion and “science” are a binary. You do realise that scientific discovery is not a person with atheistic beliefs don’t you? It’s a method. As it turns out, a lot of the most significant scientists in history weren’t atheist.

>My headcanon is legitimate because I say so
>I'm not insignificant because I say so
>I'm important!
Pathetic.

>doesn’t even address the point
>just moves goalposts into the realm of his own rhetoric and ad homs
yeah, you really aren’t as smart as you think man

Religion is nothing but a cope for hard times, in easy times people have the time, money and effort to explore for answers: Science.

Your point is dumb.

You're insignificant, not you or anyone else does will ever matter. Nothing you say can change these facts. Get over it and accept your place as an amoeba on a dot in space.

Science is the product of urban rationalism. All scientists are city men, not so for priests.

Ok I’m guessing by the level of discourse this is the same person. Have you ever read a book on history at all? Do you read anything before making retarded assertions about history? You do know current atheist thought refutes you here? They believe religion is a unifying factor for early society like a foundation myth, which is why some religions don’t even have the concept of an afterlife. Actually read up on your own stances before making your pseud claims. Also you know even fucking einstein identified as non atheist don’t you? Was he trying to “cope”?

>doesn’t even attempt to refute anything
>my point is correct my point is correct my point is correct
maybe if it can’t even stand up to a single line of questioning it isn’t? ever thought about being rational instead of letting your emotions decide what your views are?

>atheist thought
I'm non religious, not a militant atheist. I don't give a fuck what they say or believe.

very well said

There's no questioning, there's you standing there like a retard asserting that "Yes indeed, man is special and important in the cosmos because I myself am a man and could be nothing but important".

>ever thought about being rational instead of letting your emotions decide what your views are?
You clearly haven't. There isn't a single shred of proof of your importance in existence.

So rational ideas from intelligent people that contest religion are irrelevant to you, who is obviously the smartest person on Earth. Sounds like a cheap deflection

>abloo bloo stand still in the goal so I can score wahhh
When you're ready to act like an adult, I'm here.

So again, no attempt to refute my question which is a classic sign of an extremely intelligent rational thinker. Again, putting words in my mouth, and not even managing to refute your own retard version of the argument that you are conducting with yourself. Everything you say falls apart given the slightest bit of critical thought. Why is spatial distance important to “relevance”? Why, if we don’t even know if anything exists out there is “relevance” important, and why would lack of it defy meaning? Our material situation demands that certain thing be inherently relevant in nature in order for us to survive as a species, but you are arguing these things don’t matter since there’s a lot of open space? Surely these same rules apply to existence everywhere and our ideas on such matters are therfore “relevant”?

Probably baiting but concession accepted regardless

>no attempt to refute my question which is a classic sign of an extremely intelligent rational thinker
Yes, it is. Why would I waste time and mental energy debating a retard?

Ok well I’ve pretty much destroyed your little pseud ideas, you can have the last reply since some superficial sense of victory though a last reply is relevant in the boundless cold universe

>muh spes

It's threads like this one that make Yea Forums seem even worse than /sci/
Have a wonderful life
Bye

>can’t refute a simple point
>whines about it and leaves

>the virgin "c-c-can't r-refute any po-points a-and le-lea-ves!!"
vs
>the chad "Have a Wonderful life Bye"

>the virgin samefag vs the chad “just take the last reply you insecure brainlet”

not the same guy, the one you replied to apparently really left lmao

“I’m not the same guy”
lmfao

there u go faglord

Attached: sameguy.png (723x722, 117K)

Nice edit

thanks

can someone niggle me this
if 0 times infinite is still 0, then infinity cannot exist and matter cannot be divisible, it is indivisible, dividing it you will eventually reach the smallest unit possible, what greeks called the atom what we call now quantum mechanics

but if 'being' or 'existing' means 1 not 0 and 1 times infinite is still infinite then matter is not indivisible?

just b yourself lmao

so if 1 must exist and it must be divisible, divided for infinite

and the measure of 1 is us, man

'man is the measure of all things'

well what in tarnation is 2 then? and how do you get there?

This one, both comprises everything and the minute building blocks of life.
The fact of the matter is: that this far scientific understand has actually proved Aristotelian Metaphysics correct: you can see galaxies mirrored in atoms.

Their only defense is this: that there is nothing smaller than an atom. And if this is the case, this really isn’t a defense, just a criticism of our capabilities of analyzing still smaller magnifications. :3

>infinity times zero equals zero
there is no trivial type of infinity, so you cannot just spew its properties without defining "infinity" first, otherwise you are talking about intuition and not math

pic related is the argument

Attached: 1234.jpg (911x840, 330K)

Thanks doc

First time I saw this became suicidal. Still makes me want to puke. It's like you really don't know until you see the insignificance of everything.

Insignificance in size does not equate to insignificance in action, especially in the action of thinkers, artists, conquerors, kings, serfs, servants, and the rest. It is a humbling experience to appreciate the sublimity of stars relative to us and our limitations. But where we stand now, what we have been, and where we will go contains a grandeur overlooked by the cosmonauts who distance themselves from it. Beauty occurs at every level, if only we have our eye in the right direction. The opening of the rosebud in the morning, the vicissitudes and felicity of human experience, the storm that shatters the mountain, and the pale blue dot in the sea of stars all contain meaning, be it artifact or truly intrinsic.

By conceiving of time and space as infinitely divisible — i.e. as infinite — you have created a conception of the universe in which nothing can happen, because every action would require an infinite amount of power to be effected, and that's why Achilles will never catch the tortoise. And it's the same with idealized time and space: they can be infinite only if they are separate; if they are related they flow into each, and therefore become finite.

kek

>In short, we want to achieve greater and greater divisibility with our technology and techniques because the capacity for increased divisibility is virtually identical with increasing power: increasing control over things and their "destiny", whose role the controller comes to assume for them through his actions. Our concept of infinite divisibility then does not really have to be strictly mirrored in reality but is merely an expression of our greed and lust for power; the desire to not set ourselves some arbitrary limit on its expansion, but do our best and see how far we get. We will obviously never achieve this infinity any more than Achilles or the tortoise will, because this is precisely the definition of it: that which cannot be achieved — it would be oxymoronic to achieve the unachievable — but we want to aim as high as we can, and that's precisely what infinity means to us. In short, nothing is infinitely divisible because there exists no one in the universe with enough power to "infinitely" divide anything (it would have to be "infinite power", which, as we've seen, is again oxymoronic). And yes, the flux is indeed infinitely divisible, but that's only because the flux is yet another concept of ours (i.e. exists entirely within our brains, where lots of things can be regarded as "infinite" as long as we are greedy and lustful enough for them), created by a philosopher — Heraclitus of Ephesus — who was himself merely reframing an idea of his predecessor, Thales, and making it more abstract — i.e. more generally applicable (i.e. more philosophical) — the idea that "the world is made of water". Nietzsche: "Thus Thales saw the Unity of the 'Existent', and when he wanted to communicate this idea he talked of water."

>And why were Thales and Heraclitus so concerned about what "the world", i.e. infinity, was made of? Because they were philosophers, and there is no more greedy and lustful creature in existence than them. Ordinary people are not even concerned with what their food is made of, let alone "the universe" lol.

You really have to be a brainlet to be disheartened by this. All of human passion and strife contained in one single point surrounded by space, it only enhances the beauty and meaning for me. The earth as a bastion of life and the trouble and greatness that comes with that in a sea of nothing.

anglos were a mistake

>thing big so fuck morality
retard

I wonder how far of a hole you have dug to not think any further than quips

>big = important

Attached: dum dum.png (960x960, 331K)

>I'm not insignificant because I say so
That's literally what significance means.

>we will have to come to halt
>division was carried out
But what if it never stops? If we assume, that magnitudes are real numbers, they can be divided ad infinitum, without ever reaching zero.

Based Sagan worked on project A119, which goal was to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon.

youtube.com/watch?v=VLAAy_pM-k8

at least most people can post in appropriate spacing.

If everything is meaningless, then the meaning of size to meaning is meaningless, and great and small being meaningless cease making things meaningless because of their size.

name 1 (one) thing in space more remarkable than something as mundane to us as the human eye.

>moral world based in empiricism.

Attached: such confuse.jpg (1900x1900, 407K)

>>When Hegel defines nature, he says not only that it is the Otherness of the Idea, but that it is the Idea itself in its Otherness—however, what this “idealist” turn means is that Otherness should be displaced into nature itself: nature is not only the Other of the Idea, but Other with regard to itself. (So, insofar as the Idea returns to itself in spirit, one should raise the question: is spirit then also in some mode “Other with regard to itself”? Yes—precisely as what we usually call “second nature,” spirit petrified in spiritual substance.) This is why nature at its zero level is space: not only the Otherness of the Idea (the Idea in its Otherness), but Otherness with regard to itself—a coexistence of points (extensively side-by-side), with no content to it, no difference, the same throughout in its pure extensive in-difference. Far from being the “mystery” of something containing objects, space is literally the most stupid thing there is.
>mfw this is qualitatively incomprehensible to spaceoids

Attached: index.jpg (224x224, 6K)

REDPILLED

Fuck off, pedantic fuckhead

Moreover, if everything is meaningless, then you have no authority to prescribe anything. I rebuke Empiricism by its own standards, first and foremost.