/lit/ - Literature

>>9938016
>you simply have to prove that gender is socialized, not biological.

>>7551555

>ernie_boy.jpg

>wikipedia says the greeks already had 'fully formed' positions on free will
>mfw classicist vandals

>>4562370
Philosophy has birthed many fields. And all of their mainstream practices emphasize things that philosophers could conceivably object to. But science seems to be getting them bothered more than say, law or economics. Philosophers may not realize they feel upset because of their own current biases, not science's. When people argue against scientific ontological positions, they're usually pushing some competing one. And that usually allows religious beliefs.

It's sad hearing philosopher undergrads argue from the birthing of science. If the philosophers that did were around today, they'd be doing science. They also had nothing to do with it and may be taking a sort of false pride.

Or these misinformed students make a distinction as to what philosophy does or how it works. Forgetting the fact everyone already does this. You don't need to know the precise work a worldview appeared in the historical record to argue it. Or the author. Or precise and minor differences people argued about later. Or the alternate ways of seeing the same thing. The ideas probably existed before our records in any case, and was likely discovered independently by multiple people.

It's unfortunate to see the religious use philosophy to grasp for straws as well. And then try to blame it on atheists, saying they're the ones trying to paint all philosophy as religious. Persecution myth? It seems to be, as we've seen earlier everyone does 'philosophy' and there are philosophers among the new atheist. Unfortunate argument, that.

These defence mechanisms seem to be struggling to avoid the conclusion that pure philosophy's use is now historical record. This is not to hurt your feelings. The work should continue, but in history departments.