Hah, no that article is a complete trash (it is not even a scientific paper).
The authors decided on the results before they even run the "experiment" (why exactly is it called experiment without stuff like control group?), changed their methodology in the middle to hedge their bets and by the time they were busted (which in itself could be taken as a proof that you can't write this kind of shit and get away with it), they only managed to publish 5 papers out of 20 (they say 7, but one was actualy a poem and the other one an essey). Yet they claim success.
If you want an actualy good critique of the outlandish parts of social sciences, I'd recommend Sokal's Fashionable nonsense. It's a book though.
Same reasons we all are. There's a good book that I think everyone should read that does a good job of laying it all out: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143133144
stress yan, future sakit ng ulo kapag nagkakamabutihan na kayo, kung wala sa isa sa inyo ang mag-sacrifice ng religion, usap na agad kayo habang maaga na need nyo mag hiwalay ng landas.
pakiramdaman mo din kung casual dating lang, go lang, minsan kasi ay gusto lang din ng girl sa inc na ma-experience yung kumawala sa social group na ginagalawan nya, for experience lang.
suggestion ko para sa win-win:
alis kayo both sa catholicism at inc, study humanism at atheism, saka studies/researches tungkol sa gawain ng mga cult groups.
Perhaps you have not seen their bible.. There is a huge difference between a person who does not believe in god and a person who actively believes there is no god. Most of the former usually turn out to be agnostic once you talk to them, and most of the later are very active in their disdain for believers.
Yes, I am in a position to tell you leave your religion. You have no idea how badly you've been brainwashed by it. It is distorting your development if you are worried about "the one" at fifteen years old. I have the perspective to realize how screwed up this is, therefore I am in that position.
I'll tell you what, don't take it from me. Do a little reading on your own.
I researched this a while ago (didn't actually end up buying). The two translations that are generally recommended are the more recent Guyer and Wood translation and the earlier Pluhar translation. From what I can see only the latter is available in hardback.
I believe both have a very extensive overview/introduction. Both include the two editions of the critique (as any scholarly edition would) but none of them aims at commenting or explaining the text. That work is left to others. I think the Guyer and Wood is generally the one used in academy these days. From what I sampled the Pluhar seemed a bit clearer. I cannot judge any of them for accuracy. An advantage with Pluhar is that he also translated the other two critiques so if you are interested you have the chance of having them all done by the same translator.
Actually, I found this book to be a great introduction: Introducing Marxism: A Graphic Guide. There is a free Kindle version (otherwise I would say try buying it from somewhere other than Amazon, cause they suuuuuuck). It's a comic book, but very accessible and an easy read.
Also, I found this textbook to be a great introduction to communist thought: Political Economy. It is a translation of a book published by the USSR in the 1950s, so there are some typos/odd phrases, but the content is good. Also worth keeping in mind that it presents the ideas as conclusions (rather than arguments, like Marx/Lenin/Mao/etc.). So it's more useful for understanding how the USSR understood communism at the time, and not so useful if you are looking to be convinced about why those conclusions are correct. Kind of like, when you read a biology textbook it explains the currently-accepted concepts, but doesn't walk you through the centuries of experiments/debates that led to those conclusions.
I think that reading primary sources is fantastic--and many of them are written in clear language (unlike a lot of philosophy, which can be somewhat inaccessible; looking at you, Hegel and Kant). But secondary resources are a good way to orient yourself as you dive into those primary texts.
Also, look at podcasts. I personally highly recommend Rev Left Radio and Red Menace. They are great. Just use discretion, and be wary of podcasters/youtubers who don't have a good base of knowledge. My general rule is to look for podcasts that discuss well-regarded Marxist works or thinkers.
Good luck!
The God Delusion is always a good read for the beginning of the journey.
Do not worry, gods, hell, ... are all man made. But you are making kind of a hell from your life. For the start I suggest you buy https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=sr_1_1 but there are many more good books.
since you seem to have a particular interest in marxism, you should get Introducing Marxism: A Graphic Guide. it's not like, a kids guide or anything, it's just a really helpful and simple introduction to get into it (they have books on other philosophers and topics too)
In keeping with your general theme: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance/dp/0984480277. Really sharp writing, no happy ending.
You have a great start. At 15, you're going to discover so much more than argues against religion - just give it time. Keep questioning and reading. I'm sure the folks in this sub can recommend some good books for you. Like The God Delusion by Hitchens.
The harshest truth is in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance/dp/0984480277
Based on Ernest Becker's psychoanalytic work on death anxiety.
The truth is that our sense of self is a myth which exists as a coping mechanism because our consciousness cannot come to terms with knowledge that at some unknown point in time, you will die and your consciousness will cease to exist. We humans not only create sense of self, but also religion, culture, "meaningfulness", all of it is to delude ourselves into thinking that when we die, we don't really die.
There is no point to existence. No God, no justification, no reason. At some point in the past some water apes suddenly became aware of time and that they will die, and thus here we are. We will all die and be gone and eventually completely forgotten. For all eternity. We can escape into anything, devote ourselves to religion, or our own egos, or money, or politics, or music, or technology, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Nothing we can do can save us. We are powerless to stop death and there is no reason for any of this. Rage against your diety of choice if you want. Its all imaginary ideas in your head.
Once you experience this truth, you cannot unsee it.
Don't read that book if you are suicidal.
Try some philosophical pessimism. David Benatar or The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. There's also an r/pessimism sub with a reading list for more of this kind of stuff.
Welcome.
Also...
In the Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy (Volume 1) https://www.amazon.com/dp/184694676X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_xq3gFbDXMWPK9
Good album that incorporates a lot from True Detective (S1).
Non-Ficition
The Conspiracy against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143133144/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_lo3gFbAECTG27
Fiction
Songs of a Dead Dreamer and Grimscribe https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143107763/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_7o3gFb682GPBX
Sounds like you're one step away from antinatalism
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance/dp/0984480277
I’ll just leave this here
https://www.amazon.ca/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ
In this book (God delusion) Dawkins answers your question. Moral values should not be derived from the bible, they are developed from human experience.
I guess I can't really. You could check out the amazon reviews
It's a book that touches a lot of existential/nihilist issues and those things you wrote about, you'll find in there.
It's philosophy disguised as horror and horror disguised as philosophy. But realizing that you're not alone might help with the sanity thing. It helped me.
Plus the writing is better than the replies here on reddit. Must-read imho.
Ray Brassier's <em>Nihil Unbound</em>
Eugene Thacker's <em>In the Dust of this Planet</em>
I used to think that a self-aware machine-intelligence was not going to be created by human beings, whether or not such a thing is even possible, but I have started to change my view for a couple of reasons.
One is the understanding that self-awareness, that is, a sense of discrete identity, may not be a necessary component of a high intelligence. An exponentially more intelligent entity than any human might be perfectly possible without that entity being in any way self-aware.
http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger
The other thing that may be that if machine AI continues to improve its ability to appear to be self-aware and human-like, it will pass Turing tests based on its sophistication and superior speed, even if it never actually becomes self-aware, and in this case, what's the difference?
Of course, it is useful to keep in mind that in attempting to create machine intelligence comparable to human intelligence, the human intelligence ha the advantage of three billion years of ruthless, make-or-break R & D....
In any case, I am fairly certain it's not such a hot idea.
To everyone who wants to write a Freshman-level paper on the nature of fear and horror, I cannot stress enough how important In the Dust of This Planet is.
Please consider reading this book. Good luck.
Rust's character had a single, pessimistic philosophy that directed most of his train of thought. Check out this book by Thomas Ligotti, which contains some text used as Chole's dialogue word-for-word, if you're interested in getting further into it.
I don't think Frank's character had that same level of cohesion or complexity in his dialogue. He seemed to be obsessed with overcoming adversity, loved his wife, and was really just a nice guy under his gangster exterior. Maybe his dialogue was choppy because he had a fractured identity? Probably too much credit to writing to say that though -- I think there was just too much crammed in too little time for it to look polished.
Certainly homeopathy, but I recently went down the wormhole of postmodern philosophy intruding on science.
Some choice ideas, from Dawkins' review of the book:
>The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
This woman is saying that turbulence is an unsolved problem in physics because our ideas are sexist. Like, holy shit.
Also this:
>The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc^2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word).
Yes, relativity is sexist because it "privileges" one speed over the others. wow.
Watch the Thomas Metzinger talk "Being No One".
Or read reviews on his book of the same name That is my response.
If you like Lakatos then you may be interested in reading Paul Feyerabend, whose most famous book <em>Against Method</em> was in part a continuation of some earlier debate with Lakatos. I've come around to Feyerabend's point of view.