/lit/ - Literature

>>10805263
because consciousness remains spooky

>>10805264
Only science will ever elucidate consciousness. Anything else is guesswork. Why do we allow philosophers to muse over modal worlds and the properties of consciousness when no biologist is ever allowed to guess how cells work?

Because society isn't perfect and philosophy could still improve it/ thread

>>10805269
science seems fundamentally unequipped to deal with the question. That's not to say neuroscience can't offer interesting information, but it is a metaphysical thing basically

>>10805263
How much philosophy have you read, boy?

>>10805269
ahhh, someone has a dictionary

also, how do you "measure" ideas and thoughts

>>10805269
What do you think grounds science as a valid epistemological framework? Even if you think that philosophy is unneeded because science has already been developed, by destroying it you destroy any possibility of a even better system being developed in the future. It would be foolish to assume science is the peak.

>>10805263
countless reports of mystical experience found in antiquity through to the modern day in nearly every culture

>>10805263
Read Quine's Two dogmas of empiricism. He BTFO logical positivism forever.

How is philosophy dead?
It concerns itself with questions that science can never answer, like moral dilemmas

Science should be replaced because it doesn't inherently help humans live any happier.

I think for a practical reason philosophy has given us logic and gives us different ways of thinking to adopt and to further the pure fields of any field. In order to advance mathematics you have to advance the philosophy of mathematics, for instance.

Some people enjoy it, it doesn't hurt anyone so let them be.

Sure its practical application is minimal to almost useless, should we remove everything that doesn't serve a function? Stop being a twat.

well written troll 8/10

>>10805308
>its practical application is minimal to almost useless

It might be entirely useless regarding practical applications p:

>>10805291
>>10805276
Some people seem to be saying that science is unable to answer certain questions, but that belief is narrow-minded. Astronomy was once a philosophy and not a science; in fact, Plato himself tried to explain how space works. I doubt Plato could have ever imagined the wonders of Hubble. In time, science will evolve and be able to answer the desired question.
>>10805284
>>10805294
>>10805305
How much philosophy do you think is being produced that accomplishes these goals? Most philosophy that is being produced and has ever produced is a waste. How much philosophy is necessary for these things? Does Kripke make people happier?
We do not need a body of philosophers to come up with an alternative to science which I doubt exists anyway.
>>10805308
I'm fine with people having fun. But philosophy pretends to be a source of knowledge when all it does is propagate gibberish.

>>10805324
I feel that you're not properly thinking about what the fuck conscousness is. We can't even tell if it's physical, non-physical, we can't even formulate coherent sentences about it.

>>10805324
>In time, science will evolve and be able to answer the desired question. >>10805308
>It's practical application is minimal
Why is /lit/ filled with illiterates?

Why does nobody acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible philosophical axioms and infinitely many criteria for the judgement of these axioms?

It seems like once you realise this, all philosophical discussions become either laughable speculations about what the "true" definitions of concepts are (when these concepts are obviously arbitrarily defined) or flailing about within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable* conjectures. And the judgement of these speculations and conjectures is pretty much based on marketing.

I have never seen a worthwhile response to this. Can someone please give me an explanation?

* I mean we can't currently, at this moment, verify these things (e.g., We go to heaven after we die", "Once computers become fast enough, they will gain a consciousness"). And I know that science is merely a subset of philosophy. And I know there isn't an agreed upon scientific method. And I know there isn't an agreed upon definition of verify.

>>10805324
A quote from one of the most venerated "academics" in the field.
"The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self."
And people in this thread will still try to justify this network of frauds.

>>10805341
Ironic shilling is still shilling, Soren

>>10805324
It's not an alternative to science... it's the foundation of science altogether. You have to learn the philosophy of the subject and then use philosophical thinking in order to advance the field.

For instance, you could use philosophical thinking to develop calculus from algebra, trigonometry and geometry as well as logical proofs and some physics.

If you are only thinking practically, or applicably, then you're not going to get calculus... just interesting ways to use the fields already discovered more creatively.

A lot of discoveries are dead-ends and the tip of discoveries are either amazing or they're illogical or they haven't reached relevance yet.

>>10805338
I mean we are still looking for an overarching view on physics that brings together general theory and quantum physics.
That we are looking for more overarching views on philosophy would suggest there is more to it. In fact, I think that makes sense, you need philosophy to be as diverse as possible because the philosophies of other branches follow after it.

>>10805387

>"The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self."

Am I too much of a brainlet to understand philosophy if I can't understand this

>>10805435
He's just saying that the self is the mind and the body relating to the relation of mind and body. Later in the quote he explains that it can be a negatively unified relation (prioritizing one over the other, "relating the relation to the relation") or a "positive third" if the whole self (mind and body) relates not just to one or the other, but to its whole self.

I've never read Kierkegaard but "people" like to post this quote here

>>10805308
You're honestly more retarded than the OP, and that's saying a lot.

>>10805324
It's not that science is unable to answer those questions, it's that the discipline of science, necessarily constituted by scientists who dictate the limits of their field, sees these questions as fundamentally philosophy and to be dealt with within philosophy. I don't know how much you know about the history of science, but Epicurus essentially laid the groundwork for what science is today in his proto-empiricist explication of underdetermination. The role of science, as understood by science, is to understand how the world works, not what the world is like. You are making a category mistake.

>>10805435
Don't feel bad. All philosophy rambles like this. I know because I once eagerly read philosophy, only to be disappointed.
>>10805387
>>10805395
I'm sorry, but you two straight-out have no idea how math and science works. No mathematician or science applies philosophical thinking to make new theories. They use in-field experience and knowledge.
>>10805524
But it is impossible to know what the world is like. It is possible to make theories - you can make infinitely many - but, as >>10805338 pointed out, they are all unfalsifiable. It's just guessing.

>>10805580
>No mathematician or science applies philosophical thinking to make new theories.

How do you think general theory came about?
I don't know what your conception of philosophy is, or how you think I'm using it, but any abstract thinking works better within a system of abstract thinking and philosophy is the one field that promotes separate types of abstract thinking. Again logic came from philosophy.

>>10805580
You don't understand what you are talking about

>>10805263
For fucks sake.

All of modern science that you know is a subset of philosophy. Before science was called science, it was called philosophy. This is because philosophy is the pursuit and the attaining of knowledge or wisdom, and because science falls under that. Who knew.

The philosophy you're probably referring to must mean things like moral, or metaphysical, or ethical, or logical or epistemological philosophy, and they remain separate from empirical philosophy and science because we simply cannot observe these things or they are too complex for us to grapple with. However, it is the pursuit of knowledge in the beginning for subjects like metaphysics that is the first step in attaining objective empirical knowledge of the subject. If you think philosophy is useless, you are by extent saying that all of science is useless, as SCIENCE IS PHILOSOPHY.

Fuck off.

>>10805263
I study alchemy

>>10805263
Fuck you dude. Fuck you.

>>10805263
>begins with an argument
>implicit postivism
>proceeds to utilize a philosophical position
CLOSE YOUR EYYYYYYYYYEEEEEESSSSS!!!! PRAY FOR BAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIITTTT!!! CLEANSE THIS EARTH AND BRING FORTH DOOMSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I completely agree with you, OP.

All philosophy rests on "axioms." An axiom is something that somebody has just made up because otherwise their argument collapses due to a lack of proof. They say "my argument is not correct unless you let me make things up," and then complain when you tell them to fuck off and stop making shit up.

>"But don't you understand? Without axioms there can be no philosophy!"
This is an argument that presumes we should have philosophy, which is a totally unsupported presumption which I do not share.

As soon as you point this out they will just huff and ignore you. I understand that you can't hold someone hostage to dialogue, but for a field which "prides" itself on its rational argument they seem totally unable to argue that their field should even exist.

>>10805580
>But it is impossible to know what the world is like. It is possible to make theories - you can make infinitely many - but, as >>10805338 pointed out, they are all unfalsifiable. It's just guessing.

First off, falsificationism is a philosophy of science, the dominant philosophy perhaps, but a philosophy all the same. Secondly, there are both scientific and metaphysical methodologies that can be appealed to in order to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of the pictures of the world presented to us both by science and philosophy. Considerations of ontological commitment, intuitive strength, and physical/logical parsimony are just a few of the ways that competing metaphysical pictures are weighed against each other. Philosophy has developed its own methodology

Perhaps Einstein's special relativity tells us something about the ontology of space and time, perhaps it doesn't. Maybe it says one thing about it, maybe it says another. This is just one of the problems that philosophers, physicists, and philosophers of physics grapple with in their fields. There is far more interdisciplinary work occurring now than there has been in the past half-century. Your view is outdated even among scientists.

>>10805660
science = empirical
philosophy = "i made it up but i want to believe it"

>>10805705
>"axioms"
>woozyfrog.jpeg
But for real tho who said anything about rational argument YOU DIRTY MOTHAFUCKIN....

>>10805722
"""""""""""""""""""""""axioms"""""""""""""""""""""""

>>10805716
>empirical
wait till he gets a load of this guy. but also
>science = (mostly debunked) epistemological position backed by 300 or so years of philosophy
>philosophy = wahhhhhh

>>10805736
based empiricism need not concern itself with what some fucking dude thinks.

if his thoughts are correct their effects will be observable in the natural world.

lol get shrekt """"philosophers""" (read: pseuds).

>>10805624
Then can you explain to a peasant as lowly as me the value of philosophy? Everybody in this thread is making dramatic arguments esteeming philosophy as the base of all knowledge and how fundamental and useful it is, and I just don't see how the vast majority of philosophical texts do that.
>>10805613
I don't know what you mean by "general theory." But, to use mathematics as an example, group theory was created by mathematicians thinking about mathematics. Mathematics has its own "system of abstract thinking," as do other subjects.

Moreover, this thread has basically been entirely focused on philosophy of science, but philosophy is so much more than that. I have yet to see a defense of why metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics, is useful.
>>10805705 >>10805716
thanks guise
>>10805707
I have strong doubts as to the effectiveness of this methodology. I feel the same criteria can be used to approve of pseudoscience or fake historical theories. Just imagine, for example, if people used that methodology to try to figure out why the sky is blue.

>>10805705
>They say "my argument is not correct unless you let me make things up,"
You mean, like mathematicians?

>>10805744
youre literally using the language einstein learned from this guy you raging faggot. but theres no way you can be serious about this.

>>10805757
Mathematicians are also mostly bullshitting.

Our system of mathematics is an abstraction of the natural world. Maths that doesn't reflect the natural world is simply wrong.

Sometimes we can take maths and use it to make predictions about the natural world, but this is only possible where the abstraction that we already have is sufficiently accurate.

>>10805758
i am completely serious.

all knowledge is only possible through observation. knowledge you make up isn't knowledge, it's just your fucking opinion. until you observe it in the natural world it remains just some rambling scribbles on a napkin

>>10805747
I can't vouch for other things, but friend, math is a million times closer to philosophy than any science whatsoever. Did you know Euclid's proofs are still valid almost five thousand years? Did you know there was virtually no application whatsoever of number theory until cryptography came around?

Mathematics can be done in a basement or in a university, it doesn't matter. And the same follows for philosophy. You absolutely cannot say the same for any natural science whatsoever.

>>10805767
>Maths that doesn't reflect the natural world is simply wrong.
Mathematics is derived from the natural world. Trade, biology, etc. helped us derive mathematics in the first place. It is the code embedded into our reality. We have DISCOVERED this system, not created it.

>>10805747
nigga this is history of phil. 101 stuff these arent grandiose statements. sorry you either A). Read shit philosophers B). are a shitty reader and dont aspire to understand what youre reading by placing it in its intellectual and critical context or C). are just retarded. based kant did not call it the queen of the sciences for advertisement purposes he really respected copernicus and his homies and shit but that was like three hundred years ago just take our word for it now plz okay.

>>10805776
I agree. What I mean to say is that when you take the maths we have discovered and try to build on it without using observations of the natural world to do so (theoretical maths) you're on shaky ground. The predictions could be correct, but only if our observations so far are sufficiently accurate.

>>10805771
literally just recounted earlier pic relateds groundbreaking philosophical position. youre just too stupid to know it

>>10805792
>literally just recounted earlier pic relateds groundbreaking philosophical position
can't be that fucking groundbreaking if i can come up with it showering before i go off to work a real job

philosophers in a nutshell - sucking each other's cocks over trivial "discoveries" that working men have known about for centuries

>>10805771
three centuries late to the party my guy im glad you feel like youve contributed to the discourse

>>10805767
>muh natural world as it "really is"
Maybe you should actually read some philosophy before you opine on the philosophy of mathematics

>>10805804
>that working men have known about for centuries
>is-ought
>nondualism
>things-in-themselves
>primacy of signification in discourse
you’re a bad troll

>>10805805
>philosophers have known the answer for 3 centuries
>they continue to exist
>they continue to have a "discourse"
your field is a joke

>>10805771
>knowledge you make up
>observation
okay dude so walk me through this here how do we observe stuff

>>10805812
>reality doesn't exist
I think therefore I am, faggot. Even if reality is composed solely of me, it still exists.

>>10805805
implying neolithic wise guys weren't having this same discussion. i bet even grug got upset about whether lookspeak or thinkspeak was superior speak

>>10805814
>is-ought
never said this, faget. i said that there is no ought without proof.

>>10805819
>how do we observe stuff
objectively

>"b-b-b-but that's impossible"
true but there is a spectrum

>>10805815
>a joke
at least one that it is aware it is a joke, and thats a start as far as im concerned. but hey who says we cant have fu like mathematicians and make wage cucks like you pay for it with your taxes

>>10805829
what do you mean by "objectively?" like we run into objects or what?

>>10805818
No, you've missed the point. Are you a /sci/poster? I think all those "u cant no nuffins" have stultified you. The laws that govern reality do not exist of themselves, they are derived from the forms of perception, which are based in the human mind.

>>10805837
I summon, ye, based Kant

>>10805837
>The laws that govern reality do not exist of themselves,
you really don't know this. It's possible that they don't but it's also possible that they do

>>10805834
>le language is subjective argument
basic bitch semantics. try again but this time address the substance of the argument.

i know that you're attempting to drive at the point that empirical knowledge is still perceived by humans and so can never amount to objective proof of the universe from first principles, and that's fine and correct.

the point is that empirical knowledge suffices for life, whereas philosophical knowledge is useless for all purposes. it does not allow us to make better decisions in the day-to-day and does not provide the objective proofs that empirical knowledge cannot provide us. it's just a bunch of fucking losers soaking up taxpayer money in bullshit faculties.

>>10805263
Plato is still super relevant. Even Frege is just Platonism applied to language.

Until humans live harmoniously, with a satisfying occupation to fill time, and recognise the cultivation of virtue as the highest purpose of life, philosophy isn’t done.

>>10805837
see
>>10805846

>>10805716
Philosophy can be either empirical or theoretical. Science is just a subset of empirical philosophy. Before you can objectively measure something, you need to know what the fuck it is that you are even measuring. This is where theoretical philosophy comes in and why your point makes no fucking sense. Someone didn't just decide to start observing atoms and molecules. We had to theorize those systems long before we could ever conceive of measuring or observing them.

Your argument makes no fucking sense. It's the equivalent of asking why we hire carpenters to help build homes if we only see the drywall when it's finished.

>>10805871
>>Your argument makes no fucking sense
I'm not the fucking retard claiming that you can't tell the difference between a stick and a rock until the wise philosopher kings descend from their tenured chairs to explain it to us.

Jesus fuck, I hate academics so much.

>>10805846
>substance of the argument
>"wah semantics"
how do you expect me to know what your substance is if we dont get clear on your definitions? if youre one of those guys chirping on axioms and what not earlier in the thread, you should be fair sport with this.

>empirical knowledge is still perceived by humans
wtf does this even mean

>objective proof
who said anything about proof? just trying to sort out your epistemology before we go around playing with contingencies. i dont give a shit about proof you /sci/ minded faggot. also no its not fine and its not correct a nigga named saul kripke fixed this shit for retards like you along time ago but im guessing you didnt know that because YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHO FUCKING DAVID HUME IS AND YET YOU KEEP SHILLING THIS 18TH CENTURY EMPIRICIST HORSESHIT

>suffices for life
thats a strong argument. gonna explain to me how you jumped to a universal like that? idk i get pretty wigged out about uncertainty myself. as do alot of people, you know, like physicists and such

>philosophical knowledge is useless
>use
CALM DOWN THERE MR. VALUE-THEORIST I THOUGHT YOU SAID PHILOSOPHY WAS DUMB

>does not allow us to make better decisions
again, speak for yourself. I, for one, have been deeply enriched by my study of all branches of philosophy (except for, ironically, value theory). Maybe you just suck at it hence why it isnt helpful/useful/whatever other bullshitty word you want to throw in here for you

>>10805263
Philosophy is not useless it's just that retards here can't argue or make a point to save their lives but pretend they're intellectuals and not drooling halfwits with delusions of grandeur.

>>10805873
>academics
okay see here is your real bent. you dont like academics. welcome to the fucking club mate. but perks of membership do not include throwing out the actual practice lol what are you a rock.

>>10805842
Yes, but, on the one hand, it would be forever impossible to know that the laws that govern reality inhere in reality itself, since to know this with certitude, one would have to somehow understand physical reality without recourse to perception, which is impossible. On the other hand, if we consider space and time not as things in themselves, but as forms of perception which necessarily exist in the mind prior to experience, and underlie this experience, there is no trouble in understanding how the "laws of reality" apply to that which is external to the subject. In other words, it is impossible to conceive of the discovery of space in experience without space being already present in the mind, since in order to form a conception of a particular space, the idea of space must already be present in the mind. This is clear if we take the converse case; if space is an empirical idea, which must be discovered through perception, this would mean that perception would exist in spite of an absence of space,- but this is impossible, since objects can only be perceived in space. Therefore the idea of space, which is the most fundamental form that applies to objects (things in "reality") of perception and intuition, must exist a priori in the mind.

>>10805840
I AM SUMMONED

>>10805873
You still don't get it, do you? At some point, ALL SCIENCE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY. I'm not saying philosophers have to approve of things being researched, I am saying that in order for science to have existed, it had to have started off as philosophy on some specific subject, meaning that all of these subjects that you think are worthless and pointless like metaphysics and ethics are merely sciences in their infantile stages and maybe, if we keep pursuing this with the help of the rise of other empirical knowledge, we will be able to objectively measure these subjects. And without theoretical philosophy backing up this empirical philosophy, we'd be getting fucking nowhere. Ever hear of the goddamn nuclear bomb? That was a project spearheaded by THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS. THEORY.

>>10805897
Ethics and metaphysics are not something to be measured or enforced by axioms you utter cretin.

>>10805747
>I have strong doubts as to the effectiveness of this methodology. I feel the same criteria can be used to approve of pseudoscience or fake historical theories. Just imagine, for example, if people used that methodology to try to figure out why the sky is blue.

It's great that you have strong doubts, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a pretty strong demarcation between philosophy and science, and that both philosophers and scientists recognize this demarcation. There is, of course, plenty of room for shared concerns. Are you really trying to argue that asking what ontology is motivated by our best physical theories is a meaningless question?

>>10805897
>At some point
dont give him that much. he's obviously out of his league and trying to cover it up with "muh academics" bullshit. watch him make recourse to this strain of argument starting v soon.

>>10805901
Not yet anyway >:^)

>>10805901
OUT OF MY WAY YOU UTTER FAGGOT

>>10805910
Yeah, I have no idea how the academia hate has any relevance whatsoever to this argument either.

>>10805912
Oh fugg

>>10805918
Why don't you read him pass the tractatus, anon? :)

>>10805934
because my name is dave

>>10805897
>I am saying that in order for science to have existed, it had to have started off as philosophy on some specific subject
Only systemically.

>THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS
I'm sure they'd be flattered to be compared to philosophers. Scientists love it when people tell them that a bunch of old fucks trading opinions all day are just as valuable as the work they do fucking curing diseases and building weapons to keep us safe.

>>10805918
This bitch ass nigga ain't shet

>>10805944
Yeah you're not directly addressing any of my points so have fun just wringing your hands over an imaginary enemy there friendo

>>10805883
Weak rebuttal.

>"anything you say which is clearly just your own opinion i will perceive as intended to be a universal statement"
Please stop doing this.

>who said anything about proof?
If you can't prove it why should I care about it?

>>10805869
I've said this several times already: I don't think the majority of philosophy lets us live better lives. I have never read it, but does the Critique of Pure Reason help us reach virtue? What does it do for us?
Scratch that. Can somebody just outline why they believe 1) philosophy provides us with nontrivial non-imaginary knowledge and 2) progress exists in philosophy?

>>10805944
>curing diseases
>building weapons
is this really the kind of rhetoric youre left with after having been outted as a faggot?

>>10805263

>>10805949
You have no point. You just said that at one point we didn't understand how best to get empirical knowledge and a lot of people spent time figuring it out.

Okay. I agree that this happened.

Your point?

>>10805954
>outted
Your spelling is fuckted.

>>10805959
My point is that it's still happening and the philosophies you consider worthless can and will one day develop into a science.

>>10805965
They won't. He's still a major cocksuck tho.

>>10805965
>My point is that it's still happening
No it isn't.

I wish it was, but it isn't.

Philosophers nowadays are more concerned with which meme ideology is memeiest and retarded shit like the trolley problem. They've abandoned trying to find better tools, and are just focusing on yelling at each other using the tools that they've got.

Until philosophers can justify their field there is literally no point in debating the trolley problem, or capitalism vs communism, or fucking anything, because it is and will remain a bunch of fucking opinions.

>>10805952
I once rolled a joint from a page of Plato's Dialogues so consider yourself probably rebutted bucko

>>10805950
>Weak rebuttal
Literally go kill yourself you fucking retard. You're out of your league. This has been proven time again.

>Please stop doing this
>your own opinion
Don't be such a raging pussy. if you want to make a bold statement, then do it. Don't try to clean your shit later.

>If you can't prove it...
I think you missed the point, but thats not surprising at this point.

>>10805952
>i dont think the majority of philosophy lets us live better lives
>virtue
holy fuck my guy you just have no fucking clue how ironic this all is. i really hope this has been one large troll.

But also lol at how apologetic youre tone has become. Just admit it, you have no clue what youre saying at this point.

>>10805978
Ohhhhhh, you think /lit/ is an accurate representation of the entire field of philosophy and its current state. Oh wow, that's amazing

>>10805960
oh no i misspelled a word on a mongolian cheese trading board. kys for wasting archive space

>>10805984
>Don't try to clean your shit later.
Yes, it's literally impossible for you to have misunderstood something I've written. Any attempt by me to clarify things is merely pernicious goalpost shifting.

I have no interest in continuing this farce. You're a brainlet.

>>10805990
>you think /lit/ is an accurate representation of the entire field of philosophy
No, I'm speaking from 6 years of study that have left me incredibly bitter.

>>10805984
My tone has always been inviting of discussion. I don't know what you're alluding to really. I guess everything I post seems apolegtic when I'm not telling people to kill yourself you fucking retard. It'd be nice to respond to my question btw.
>>10805990
Can you point me towards philosophy to which what he said doesn't apply?

This thread is an interesting philosophical work. The question is not "Why do philosophy?", the question is "Why do we do philosophy?".

>>10805991
Kys for replying to me and wasting even more archive space

>>10805978
>the trolley problem
oh my god you have watched like what three youtube videos or something. you have no knowledge of the contemporary field of philosophy. again, YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHO FUCKING DAVID HUME IS LOL

>>10806006
>YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHO FUCKING DAVID HUME IS LOL
It amuses me that you think this. I don't even know where this assumption is coming from except that you desperately want it to be true.

Kind of like the rest of philosophy.

>>10805996
No nigga i understood everything perfectly, youre retarded clear and simple. and no youre not walking away from this getting to call anyone a brainlet because you come on my thread after i spent a good amount of time cooking up some hefty phil memes and you still dont understand jack shit. youre an asshole, a retard, and, worse, earnest.

>>10806006
Not him, but he used to play for West Bromwich Albion innit?

>>10805998
Quite literally every major philosophical point of convergence and debate is not that meme shit.

>>10806014
>No nigga i understood everything perfectly

>>10806009
im glad you googled him three fucking seconds ago but as evidenced from your posts you wouldnt know Hume if he shoved his famous shade of blue dick up your ass.

>>10806016
I HAVE DEFEATED THE FAGGOT.

>>10806018
>as evidenced from your posts you wouldnt know Hume if he shoved his famous shade of blue dick up your ass.
>as evidenced
>evidence
NOW you're starting to understand, anon.

Now just compile that evidence into a proof and you'll have finally ascended from the quagmire of philosophy into the realm of objective understanding.

>>10806021
Do you feel victorious?

>>10806024
you still havent cleared up that word for me. walk me through it again. "objective...?"

>>10806024
> aware of the concept of objectivity
> thinks philosophy is useless

Now that you’ve googled Hume, try typing in “epistemology”.

>>10806029
Have you told your parents that you struggle to understand English? They have special classes for children like you which I think would benefit you.

>>10806034
I dont want an analytic definition. I want your definition, just to make sure we are nice and clear.

>>10806032
I've got a better idea.

Why don't you try presenting an argument instead of a wall of palpable smugness impressive only to you?

>>10806036
This will suffice.

>>10806039
says the retard who started out behind a wall of palpable wall of smugness before he was reduced to a series of short and ultimately disappointing posts (mostly because he was the only one in the in the room who didnt get the joke) that merely reinforced his status as a grade-A retard.

>>10806045
My posts are replies, so if they are disappointing it is only because that was all they ever could have been.

>>10806044
now we're getting somewhere. okay, so how do we know things, or as the almighty google says, how can we prove things to be true?

>>10806054
>how can we prove things to be true?
I don't know.

>>10806032
>feminists need to learn to be as bitchy, whiny and immature as conservatives

America was a mistake

>>10806053
i see what you tried to do there, but you only made yourself sound more stupid. even if we take this statement on good faith, youve just admitted to only ever being a recipient of quality, not a creator of it. a true underman if ive ever heard of one

>>10806063
then you are retarded, and should seek help

>>10806065
For someone who browses /lit/ you should have a better understanding of how language works.

>My posts are replies, so if they are disappointing it is only because that was all they ever could have been.
>The posts are replies, so if they are disappointing it is only because that was all they ever could have been.
Functionally identical sentences, because the appellation that "if they are disappointing it is only because that was all they ever could have been" clearly only applies to the fact that they are replies, not the fact that they are my posts.

Them being replies is operative, not them being my posts.

I'd think more and post less, if I were you.

Another complaint I have with philosophy is that it seems that progress is never made in many branches (the ones that aren't superseded by science). Do philosophers of aesthetics of ethics know more than philosophers of antiquity, in the same sense that physicists know now more than physicists hundreds of years ago? What about epistemologists?
It all seems like rambling in circles, going further down the rabbit hole of big words but no new significant ideas are ever said...

>>10806071
>I'd think more and post less
says the nigga who just failed to btfo philosophy you coulda just said we're all jobless and up to our eyeballs and in debt lol

>>10806014
What are you doing in /lit/ nigger?

>>10806068
You wasted everybody's time with your massive diatribes, complaining all the way that the fault was mine for not indulging your stupid fucking question, only to, in the end, give THAT as your response?

You deserve every bad thing that will ever happen to you.

My point is and has always been that I don't know how we objectively prove something, and that nobody does, and that in the absence of such proof philosophy is just opinions, and I don't care about a bunch of people's random fucking opinions.

My argument has been clear and succinct every time I have brought it up.

You have done nothing but piss and moan and throw out insults and when I have FINALLY deigned to give you an opportunity to actually fucking say something that matters you have, presumably like you always do and always will, squandered the opportunity.

Kill yourself in real life and then delete all of your posts.

>>10806076
Stop trying to save yourself you faggot just go home

>>10806084
Being an uninformed boisterous barely coherent twat. So, he's fitting in quite nicely

>>10806076
I share this impression.

It's actually what twigged me to the whole thing being a sham.

>5,000 years of continuous philosophy and still no definite answers on any topics
>"but we're doing valuable work"
What a joke.,

>>10806086
>My point is and has always been that I don't know how we objectively prove something
There you go again with this hidden notion of objectivity you've slipped in there. Tell me in what sense your use of the word matches with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?"

>nobody does
i know quite a few people who might disagree with that (namely all those scientists you keep sucking off, i sure hope we can save them), and yet i didnt know the point of philosophy was to tell how we objectively prove things. that seems way too narrow and analytically misguided.

>my argument has been clear and succinct
and yet youve been babbling this whole time and avoiding just coming out and saying it.

>in the absence of such proof
what are your standards for proof?

>random fucking opinions
youre just being uncharitable now

>>10806095
>(You)
kys

>>10805747
>I have strong doubts as to the effectiveness of this methodology. I feel the same criteria can be used to approve of pseudoscience or fake historical theories. Just imagine, for example, if people used that methodology to try to figure out why the sky is blue.

My nigga doesnt even understand that what is pseudo science is one of the LARGEST questions in the philosophy of science.

T. Stemlet see you later

>>10806120
there_is_no_need_to_be_upset.jpg

>>10806133
stop samefagging lol youve lost

>>10806111
>Tell me in what sense your use of the word matches with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?"

I don't know how we prove something in a way whereby the proof is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions and is concerned solely with being supported by facts, facts being a thing that is true.

>and yet youve been babbling this whole time and avoiding just coming out and saying it.
You've not really demonstrated yourself worth the effort of doing so.

Even now I'm only about half committed to this thread.

>i know quite a few people who might disagree with that (namely all those scientists you keep sucking off, i sure hope we can save them)
Then I welcome them to try and change my mind, but I believe that they will fail to do so.

>>10806135
What? Who the fuck are you talking to? Are you the stemfag or do you think I'm the stemfag?

>>10805747
>useful
yup, this thread should be removed

>>10806150
We do need more Peterson and Pewdiepie threads.

>>10806142
Okay, good. Now qualify what you mean by prove, proof, etc. as I've asked already.

>Even now I'm only about half committed
Don't try to talk you're way out of this one you genuine faggot.

>Then I welcome them to try and change my mind...
> missing the point this hard

>>10806155
>Now qualify what you mean by prove, proof, etc. as I've asked already.
If I set the standards of proof, the proof will no longer be objective.

Think a little, anon.

It needs to be proven to be true. I don't care how it's proven so long as the proof accomplishes that. Proof is anything by which something's truth can be demonstrated.

>>10806162
>If i set the standards for proof...
And what you think OED just pulls it out of their ass? where is this "proof" coming from? what is "objective proof?" youve clarified "objective" a bit, but thats only led me to this other mysterious term "proof." how am i supposed to know when something can "be proven to be true" if i dont have a working definition of proof here. gimme something to work with geez no wonder you dislike philosophy.

>>10806162

My nigger do you honestly have no idea that all of these things YOU believe are predicated on philosophies of sciences?

And your definition is an instantiation of one such philosophy.

How do you miss the point this hard.

>>10806173
>if i dont have a working definition of proof here
You do.

Proof is anything by which you demonstrate something to be true.

>>10806175
The thing is, I don't pretend my opinions aren't opinions.

>>10806175
its okay let him keep going i feel like im rewriting "two dogmas of empiricism" in real time

>>10806175
its called autistic trolling there is no point in getting upset. if you aren’t either crushing in the first 3 replies or totally irreverent and elusive they win. this is old method of feeding a personality disorder anon

>>10806175
He's a brainlet that doesn't understand that each and every science has a set of principles that guides the workers in the field in how they act, interact, research, interpret, etc. essentially a philosophy.

>>10805263
That's not true of all the philosophical branches, and even philosophers of science like Kuhn help scientists better understand how to think about their fields.

Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean they can fit it into a larger, broadly useful framework others can then build upon.

Just because an idea may become obsolete or seems impractical at first doesn't mean it isn't useful or that engaging with it can't lead to something better.

>>10806181
Okay, now we're talking. What is "truth" here, and how would we go about demonstrating something having a relation to it.

Not gonna nuance the fact that this is starkly not what you said earlier about empiricism. This definition lets WAY TOO much into the epistemology, but thats a different matter.

>>10806182
*googling intensifies*

>>10806202
>What is "truth" here
Jesus fucking Christ, are we really doing this. For fuck's sake anon, you should already know this.

A statement is true if it is accurate to the thing that the statement is about.
>X is X
True statement, because the thing I have said about X ("is X") is accurate to X (X).

Accurate meaning that it is identical to that thing on a conceptual level.
>The flowing river flows.
True statement, because the thing that I have said about the flowing river (it "flows") is identical to the state of the flowing river in a conceptual sense - i.e. that the activity of the flowing river is completely conceptually the same as the concept bound up in the verb "flow". And so on with other parts of speech.

Identical meaning objectively indistinguishable - fundamentally indistinguishable not to the point where nothing can distinguish them, but to the point where it is impossible to distinguish them at all. This is a long way of saying that they are "the same" which avoids the hangup that "flow" and "a flowing river" are not really the same.

Parts of this may not be perfect because I've not had to explain it like this before, but it should get across the point.

>>10805294
I was going to write some snarky greentext example of how retarded that statement is but I can't even begin to emphasise your stupidity. Without science you'd be sitting in a mud hut covered in your own feces smashing rocks together to try and make a fire. That's if you were the one child from your 9 siblings who didn't die during infancy.

>>10806223
>A statement is true if it is accurate to the thing that the statement is about.

(((is Accurate)))

Predicate logic.

is this the dreaded......philosophy??????

>>10806229
If he didn't know there was more to life than sitting in a mud hut, he wouldn't be unhappy about his situation.

>>10806236
Anon, you complain that I am opaque but then you make posts like this.

>>10806241
Im literally stating youre using predicate logic.

Predicate Logic is used to find out what is true.

Predicate logic, and what is true are philosophy.

And you claim Science need not philosophy.

You are just fucking inconsistent.

>>10805294
>>10806229
Eh, I'd argue that human lives cannot be made any happier due to the Hedonic treadmill. Our base level of happiness has and always will be the same. We just get better and better at stimulating our reward systems in our brains, but that doesn't equate to long term genuine happiness. Real happiness stays constant as when our life's conditions improve/worsen we get used to them and move on or die. Doesn't matter if you win the lottery or get diagnosed with cancer. 6 months later if you're alive you'll be back to normal.

>>10806255
But certain personality types are just happier overall regardless of life conditions and these attitudes can be adapted to improve that base level of happiness.

>>10806248
>everything is philosophy!!!!!!
You consumed all my time just to waste it with this weak shit.

>"but everything IS philosophy!"
Thus broadening the term to the point of uselessness, which only means that next time this argument happens we'll have to waste 10 minutes making up a new word so that your autistic need to "win" arguments at the expense of them coming to any substantive conclusion is satisfied.

Typical philosopher, and typical philosophy.

>>10806263
Well this would be better achieved with psychology rather than philosophy just like OPs original point.

>>10806265
If you have a PHD in the sciences.

Which at this point im SURE you dont.

Tell me what PhD stands for.

>>10806223
Okay, so how does something attain accuracy? If I understand you, your whole gripe is that you don't know how we demonstrate something to be accurate to whatever statement we make about it whereby this demonstration is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions and is concerned solely with being supported by a statement that is accurate about the thing the statement is about? Or am I missing something? Just filling in blanks so far. Don't want to let the end goal get too far out of sight.

>>10806265
Questions of

how is something true.

Why is it true.

What makes it true.

What is a fact.

What is it mean to be in accordance with facts.

Predicate/inductive logic.

ALL THINGS SCIENCE LITERALLY CANNOT DO WITHOUT,

ARE PHILOSOPHY YOU MONGOLOID.

Jesus christ. STEM education has ruined this fucking country.

>>10806241
That's not me dude, im >>10806273
sorry i wasent as fast, busy trying to fill in your blanks. but plz dont give up because other people are being mean to you now i really feel like we may be getting somewhere.

>>10806272
Doctorate of Philosophy.

>>10806273
>your whole gripe is that you don't know how we demonstrate something to be accurate to whatever statement we make about it whereby this demonstration is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions and is concerned solely with being supported by a statement that is accurate about the thing the statement is about?
Yes, that about sums it up.

Basically, philosophers are happy to say things without feeling any need to prove what they say, but then expect me to consider what they say as a serious and important pronouncement.

I'm happy to do this with certain things: "wear sunscreen or you'll get cancer." Okay, sure, it hasn't been proven to the standard that I've set out here, but I don't need things proven to that standard to make practical decisions about my day to day life.

Now let's take the example one step further: "we should reform our tax to be more progressive because these top economists say that it won't damage business and the money we raise can be spent on doing things for you and others." Okay, sure, it hasn't been proven to the standard I've set out here, but again, I don't need it proven to that standards to make that kind of decision. The empirical knowledge is enough, because I believe that the empirical knowledge is accurate enough to predict future events.

But watch what happens when we get into philosophy: "we should implement a society in the image of Rawl's veil of ignorance because that's the right thing to do."
Well, is there any empirical knowledge to base a decision off of for this? No, of course not. But the philosophers will tell me that there's oodles and oodles of "philosophical" knowledge. Okay, I'll take a look.

But it's all made up - based on "axioms", which are themselves made up.

Except as soon you tell them this, and that this is why you don't believe them, they dissolve into a shitfit like this thread.

Thus I hate academics.

>>10806278
>Questions of
>how is something true.
>Why is it true.
>What makes it true.
>What is a fact.
>What is it mean to be in accordance with facts.
None of these questions have been answered, and yet science continues along just fine.

Science is a process. I could do science without a fucking brain. A fucking clockwork machine with zero consciousness can do science if it's set up right, except perhaps the "forming a hypothesis" part. But the testing and observing and recording part - the meat of it - sure.

>>10806312
Literally bases everything on empericism.

Empericism is literally a philosophy tracable to 3 people.

Thinks philosophy is jerking around.

STEM education has truly made our citizens duly ignorant of the history, fundamentals, beliefs of their own god damn field.

You're practically religious at this point.

>>10806322
>Science is a process. I could do science without a fucking brain. A fucking clockwork machine with zero consciousness can do science if it's set up right, except perhaps the "forming a hypothesis" part. But the testing and observing and recording part - the meat of it - sure.
uh.
no this is just wrong.
>None of these questions have been answered, and yet science continues along just fine.

not answered deductively sure, but science would literally not exist without empercists/bacon's philisophical work.

The fact that people dont understand the history or philosophy of science means you faggots treat this like a religion that fell from the sky and will work all the time.

Im seriously done, the sorry state of you stemfags is disguisting.

>>10806280
ah fuck it dude i'll give up my act i need to go read seiobo tonight and start being mean to you again. note that im leaving off with >>10806223 being the last thing you posted, though i doubt you somehow will overcome this hole you've dug yourself into in the time its taken me to type this up.

okay, as evidenced by our exchange notably in >>10806054
>>10806063
>>10806142
>>10806162
>>10806181
>>10806223
You only ever put off the problem of explaining the basis for your criticism via synonymity. In other words, you never actually told me what your damn problem is, or what the problem could be in the first place. You just based your definitions on other definitions, all of which seem to be leading nowhere. But that's okay. You didn't know what you were doing. If you actually give a fuck about this problem, check out the quine's essay that i referenced here >>10806182 and grice and strawsons response to it in "in defense of a dogma." the concept of "family resemblance" would do ya some good. but i want you to take three things away from this:

1. you and i just did philosophy (albeit poorly), congrats

2. you're not actually an empiricist. desu if we would have finished the exchange we'd've probably ended up near full blown Platonism what with all these family terms.

3. you're still a raging faggot who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy and who is still desperately out of his league by posting in this thread. when you're done being butthurt over my remarks, and you look back over all your replies and cringe, take the time to look at other posts in this thread to further learn why.

>>10805263
>it's a philosophy is a dead meme thread

we've had this thread and this discussion at least five hundred billion times on this board. can you just fuck off? nothing is going to get accomplished here.

>>10806335
>You only ever put off the problem of explaining the basis for your criticism via synonymity.
Gee, perhaps this was because all you ever did was ask me to define words and then complain when I told you that an endless chain of defining things would never lead to substantive debate, and then you whinged for about an hour because I refused to define things.

And lo, when I finally give in and define things for you, you complain that all I do is define things.

It's a good thing I was never more than half committed. You were and remain a waste of my time.

>>10806352
>It's a good thing I was never more than half committed

How does year two physics major feel?

Worried youll have to drop out after failing diffeq again?

Jesus fuck you stem fags will never learn.

>>10805997
yeah i'm sure.

>>10806360
>How does year two physics major feel?
I spent three and a half years studying philosophy and I regret every single course I took.

>>10806365
ok big boss

>>10806365
>ebinsadguyposter
Sure

>>10806312
>it's all made up axioms

Please fucking stop. You don't know what you're saying. All knowledge is based on axioms. NO EXCPETIONS.

NONE.

>>10806360
rude

>>10806380
>All knowledge is based on axioms. NO EXCPETIONS.
Which axiom was used to obtain my knowledge that when I turn the tap in the shower to the right I get hot water?

>>10806381
calling someone rude

on mongolion hentai-rape board.

ok

>>10806352
i think you missed quinefags point

if your definitions only unfold into other definitions, then how do you expect to ever get at a true understanding of objectivity, fact, proof, truth, or accuracy? you're telling us nothing meaningful about the world, just listing off circular definitions.

and without an understanding of at least one of those concepts, how do we knows it is absent from the world? how we even understand what you are complaining about?

an empiricist of your caliber would want at leastnone of your definitions to say something about the world we experience

>>10806389
>if your definitions only unfold into other definitions
They don't.

A statement is true if it is in a conceptual sense indistinguishable from the thing that the statement is about.

"The red car is red."
This statement is true because the colour of the car is indistinguishable from the colour red - indistinguishable in an objective sense, i.e. that it is literally impossible to distinguish.

>"oh no but the atoms..."
And THAT'S how we get sidetracked into infinitely unfolding definitions, with arguments constructed like legislation so that they can only possibly mean one thing and not any other thing, just to avoid crafty rules-lawyers circumventing the point.

You know what truth is. Act like it.

>>10806398
>ndistinguishable in an objective sense, i.e. that it is literally impossible to distinguish.

What is identity of indescribable.

I doubt you took philosophy.

>>10806387
The axiom that your senses can report accurate data and that there is such a thing as knowledge you fucktard. Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it is self evident or even capable of being proved. Without axioms you sit around all day jumping at fucking shadows because you cannot form a coherent thought or form a base of knowledge in any subject because you CANNOT prove that reality itself not only exists but that you are an agent in it and that you are capable of perceiving it. Please shut the fuck up and go learn what these words mean before you use them you stupid fucking monkey.

>>10806403
>The axiom that your senses can report accurate data
That's not relevant. I never claimed that the data was accurate.

>and that there is such a thing as knowledge
That's not an axiom. I know, therefore my knowledge exists.

>>10806402
>What is identity of indescribable.
Not an argument in this context.

>>10806398
in what conceptual sense? what about the concept of redness matches my experience of a red car. does the red car just force its way into my head and redefine my understanding of redness? or am i going out into the world and finding things that accord with my concept of redness? and for the record a thing in the world vs. a thing in my mind seem by definition to be distinguishable (descartes says hi). that last comment says a lot about how you view philosophy. you should try to work backward, not forward.

>>10806412
>in what conceptual sense?
INFINITELY
UNFOLDING
DEFINITIONS.

From now on I will not answer any question unless you tell me in advance the point of it.

>>10806405
Yes you fucking did. The fact that you can distinguish between objects implies accuracy you absolute fucking nitwit. "I know therefore my knowledge exists." Absolutely circular, the premise proves itself.

>>10806414
just trying to understand what you mean by indistinguishable. identity claims are pretty loaded claims to make. if you believe in the infinitely unfolding definitions meme you are not an empircist.

>>10806414
(because you cannot answer them brainlet)

>>10806415
>Yes you fucking did
Where?

>The fact that you can distinguish between objects implies accuracy you absolute fucking nitwit.
No it doesn't. A blind person can distinguish between a door and a chair, but that doesn't make his opinions on their colour any more accurate.

Think before posting, anon.

>"I know therefore my knowledge exists." Absolutely circular, the premise proves itself.
I suppose you disagree with "I think therefore I am" on similar grounds?

>>10806420
>just trying to understand what you mean by indistinguishable.
Unable to be distinguished, independent of who is trying to make the distinction - i.e. impossible to distinguish.

To put it another way, a statement is true if the meaning of the statement is the same as what the statement refers to. What I mean when I say the car is red is exactly the same as the car.

I'm trying to help you understand this, and I think you do understand this, but you're so fixated on pinning it down that you're stopping yourself from letting the understanding flow naturally from use of the terms in the wild - like trying to figure out wolf behaviour from studying them in zoos.

>>10806427
no point in continuing this conversation as not only do you not understand what an an axiom is, you're also unbearable while being stupid. i'm out.

>>10806432
I'm disappointed that you feel that way.

>>10806435
try pic related sometime.

Good lord is this OP entertaining.

>>10806441
Thanks, I'm no longer disappointed that you're upset.

>>10806427
nice metaphor are you 16 or 17 now? studying wolf behavior in zoos is comfy compared to being eaten by them or somethinfmg. now you've defined indistinguishable as meaning the same thing but again how does it mean the same thing? like i said, the concept of redness seems like a very different thing from the red car i experience. the latter is real and exists independently of me, for one, though my perception of it does not. maybe redness exists independetly of me but i sure as hell dont know it that way and cant definitely verify through other people. it seems like i have good reasons to doubt theyre similar at all.

>>10805263
OP are you still there? I made a thread not long ago that was so similar to this I wondered whether this one was mine still being bumped.
>It is a shame how many countless hours naive men have spent their time reading philosophy
How much philosophy have you read? For you to have have to made that assessment of philosophy I think you've probably read quite a bit of it. Do you not feel any of it was of use?

I have one other disagreement with you. Judging by your line about alchemy, I think you view philosophy as something that is inherently flawed and that it will eventually be replaced. I agree with this, but can you not see that for something to be replaced, it has to first exist? If primitive philosophical ideas about "matter" being composed of fire, earth etc. hadn't been speculated, we wouldn't have arrived at modern chemistry.

You should look at philosophy as simply a method for inquisition, then once better tools are developed, we are able to find better answers. You can't do away with it entirely because there is always a necessity for someone to 1. ask more questions and 2. challenge existing ideas.

So yes, some of it does fall into the three categories (uninteresting, worthless, or nonsense) but there is also a large part that basically keeps all other disciplines in check as well generating new disciplines.

Let me know what you think.

>>10806441

Didn't you declare you were "out" in the last post?

>>10806445
What is the point of your questions.

I'm through restating the same thing. If you don't understand, read my post again. Otherwise, ask a single question that clearly expresses and gets to the heart of the problem.

>>10806450
tl;dr of this post: Once upon a time philosophy was useful, but the study of philosophy today is simply a study into the history of human development. That, and a supplement to all other disciplines.

>>10805263
>Implying that I don't study alchemy

>>10805279
hopefully none.

getting philosophy fags to realize how useless it is might be worse than trying to get a christian to give up their religion

>>10806466
Kill yourself retard

>>10805263
>psychology find the actual answer
Loma

>>10806458
any time you cant answer a question, you try to step out of it by demanding that people try to understand you better or by getting into a pissing contest. i am trying to show that you dont know what your own words mean, and that you give an unsatisfactory explanation of them. as truth is one of these words, id say you have a pretty shitty explanation of what it is, and thats a sad thing to base your worldview on. the fact that i have to spell it out after ive hinted at the mind-body distinction throughout my posts just makes you look idiotic. but obviously you cant be helped. someone as unthreatening as >>10806450 is wasting their time with such a brainlet.

>>10806477
>any time you cant answer a question, you try to step out of it by demanding that people try to understand you better or by getting into a pissing contest.
Or maybe I've been in this thread for like two fucking hours and am yet to meet a genuine attempt to engage substantively. I'm as frustrated by the infinitely unfolding definitions as you are. I've simply realised the solution: stop indulging them.

>i am trying to show that you dont know what your own words mean, and that you give an unsatisfactory explanation of them.
Then you're doing a pisspoor job, but I'm sure all the people on /lit/ who already agree with you will happily pat you on the ass for saying things that they like to hear.

>id say you have a pretty shitty explanation of what it is
THEN FUCKING SAY SO INSTEAD OF ASKING FIVE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

>>10806492
>"Missing the Point": the thread
>two hours
maybe you should just kill yourself faggot

>>10806477
Hey don't call me unthreatening!

>>10806504
I think we all should

>>10806492
What a tremendous faggot.

>/lit/ gets master baited: a tragedy in 200+ posts

>>10806560
And it’s still going. I love this thread.

>>10806560
I wish /lit/ masterbaited me if you drift my catch

>We don't study alchemy because chemistry has entirely replaced it
Speak for yourself, mundane.
;)

>>10805263
that's not what you're mom said

>>10805263
>psychology find the actual answer
kek

>>10805269
consciousness is irreducible from the point of view of science, where the subjective observer is axiomatic and the object is the one in question.

>>10806398
>"The red car is red." This statement is true because the colour of the car is indistinguishable from the colour red - indistinguishable in an objective sense, i.e. that it is literally impossible to distinguish.

*blocks your path*

>>10805263
>We don't study alchemy
Maybe you don't.

>>10805263
>So why do we continue to study philosophy more than a century after it has died?
its great fun

>waah philosophy is useless
These arguments have been made since the fucking ancient Athenians, it's trite and boring. Learn about the history of philosophy and shut your mouth. Even if somehow philosophy stops being relevant at a certain date, there is so much intellectual history to study that you can spend your whole life focusing on a certain historical period. Quite simply, if you are implying that studying Plato and Aristotle is not worthwhile you are a retard and deserve to get laughed at.

>>10807163
>if you are implying that studying Plato and Aristotle is not worthwhile you are a retard and deserve to get laughed at.
Demonstrate that it is.

>>10807181
By demonstrating it, I would be applying the tools of logic, which Aristotle invented.
By comparing philosophy to the methodologies of natural science, I would be referring to fields which Aristotle first set in motion and defined their agenda.
By employing doubt against its claims, I would be utilising the Socratic method as recorded and developed by Plato.
By questioning its ontological status regarding reality, I would he assuming a field that came to maturity in ancient Greece.

The fact that you do not understand this, is what makes you a clueless idiot ignorant of intellectual history. Philosophy doesn't "fail" when separate sciences grow out of its roots as dependent branches. That is its chief sucess.

>>10807203
>using philosophy means that studying it was worthwhile
I use my car all the time and I've got no idea how it works.

Should I abandon my high-paying professional career to study how to be a mechanic for a year or two?

>>10807213
No, but you should pay a professional mechanic when you run into issues with your car.

>>10807224
I'd pay a professional philosopher too if they could demonstrate their pronouncements as having any merit whatsoever, but they can't. They're just fucking opinions. I might as well think for myself and save some money.

>>10805263
>We don't study alchemy
you don't?

>>10805263
>psychology find the actual answer.
>only about 10% of the studies are actually replicable on the field
you might as well study alchemy at that point

>>10805263
The first is completely false, no one can come up with a structured philosophical system without studying, commun sense "philosophy" is not philosophy, philosophy comes from a formalized system of logic that has an end goal which is finding a result, also if you want to say "but it isn't empirical" so isn't mathematics, in the end mathematics and philosophy are the same, a group of axioms that are can be either apriori or aposteriori and with those you can create a system, it doesn't need to be verified to be right
The second one is so fucking dumb, STEM subjects and philosophy don't ask the same questions, even if in physics you study the physical world you don't try to find what it is, but how it works, philosophy is beyond working, it is finding the essence on things, that's why we have a shit ton of brands in philosophy related to STEM subjects (philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of physics, and so on)
The third is just commun sense and not trying to search for good works, it's like saying that "all recent music is shit", it's obviously a wrong statement because you didn't do a research on all musicians that are still producing music, the same goes for philosophy, if you go to philpapers you can find a work on EVERY SUBJECT YOU WANT, you obviously didn't do research and just saw a Zizek video and thought "oh he talks nothing with nothing so i guess philosophy is useless now"
Kill yourself OP, i don't care if it is bait or not, just kill yourself

>>10807458
there's no need to be upset

Glad we got philosophy out of the way

>>10807242
>implying that psychology isnt the continuation of alchemical tradition

If this thread is still alive when OP wakes up I will be ecstatic.

>>10807476
All plebs ought to be shot

>>10807478

It more or like internalizes inside me what Zizek means by pure, empty ideology when I see that image and how it basically serves both sides of the same argument at once depending on who's reading it.

>>10807497
This picture only refers to authority. Persons on the left side have more authority than persons on the right, therefore they are, ehem, right. There are hardly other readings of this picture, because people who praise dickheads on the right side are usually people who worship science (but know nothing of it) and the words of actual scientists (on the left side) in their eyes have more weight.

>>10805263
If philosophy doesn't have a "pragmatical" or technical use as science it doesn't mean it is worthless. Your "nonsense argument" could also be applied to a lot of scientific research : great discoveries on a field aren't possible if a amount of "useless" knowledge isn't created to be unified into a wider system afterwards. Same with obsolescence : Newton's theories have been proved to be wrong on a certain scale by modern physics. Doesn't mean it is worthless.
What is the exact date of the death of philosophy ? As long as we keep on creating and searching for new concepts to explain our world philosophy still exists. And precisely, one can interpretate or judge concepts in many different ways, but they still remain as philosophical objects.
Actually this thread shows why philosophy is still important : analyzing your ideas reveals a few features of the common thinking in a super-technical society which has forgotten all about the use of reason outside of the a-political science field.
Alchimestry is fun though.

The funniest thing is OP has been using philosophy all this time, through his arguments and thoughts about philosophy itself. There's no escaping it. If someone thinks philosophy is useless, just ask them why, and interrupt their explanation by saying "you're using philosophy right now".
A lot of people nowadays imagine philosophy as something useless, because it doesn't have to concern itself with the practical things. For example, if I'm thinking about morals, I am not doing anything practical.
People think it's useless because of cancerous positivism, materialism, pragmatism, and other similar branches that have evolved and spread over the years thanks to the cringe-inducing faith in human progress and science. I'm not for going back to the church dogmas, but we've been going in the opposite direction for quite some time. Maybe the french revolution was a mistake.

>>10807578
No it's just analytic philosophy being a mistake, the continental tradition is as important to society as it ever was.

>>10805324
You are an uneducated buffoon. Science is nothing but the application of Mathematics to experience, plus certain epistemological and ontological assumptions regarding the proper interpretations of the results of these applications. Since it is mathematiaclly proven that math itself is not able to answer all mathematical questions this means that Science at large is also unable to account for all questions that can be asked regarding reality.

>>10807589
You're probably right, analytic philosophy is like philosophy trying to suck up to science. A friend of mine is studying philosophy, and he told me that almost everyone worships analytic philosophy an no one takes continental stuff seriously. It's so bad that even their order of studying is fucked up. They do Aristotle before Plato, and I can bet that's because of his empiricism. Aristotle didn't do analytic philosophy, but he was more "grounded in reality" compared to the idealism of Plato.

>>10807596
mathematics are incidental, if you had a physical model that was a coin and you could predict if an arrow would hit a target by flipping the coin with 100% accuracy, that coin would be your physical model.

>>10807601
Unless you could prove that the coin was not isomorphic to some mathematical structure the point still stands. This seems improbable since you described the system using informal probabilistic terminology, and since probability itself is mathematical. What would it mean to say that the coin model has 100% accuracy if we're speaking outside of probability theory?

>>10807458
Philosophy either is just philosophers taking time to formalize common sense or it’s esoteric dense and meaningless Derrida crap
>>10807228
This. Academic philosophy does not actually advance what philosophers claim they are trying to do.
>>10807483
Sup (about to go to class though)

>>10807647
>This seems improbable since you described the system using informal probabilistic terminology, and since probability itself is mathematical
the coin may not be probabilistic and just show one face or the other depending on weird causal factors

>What would it mean to say that the coin model has 100% accuracy if we're speaking outside of probability theory?
you got me there, i guess in that world we wouldn't use 100%, but we would compare it to a very accurate kind of coin

>>10807478
Dawkins and Nye have stated nothing ridiculous in their fucking quotes, what is this shit?

>>10807728
>being this nye
youre a migrant cuck arent you

>>10805269
>science is the answer for everything
why anon, that was dumb

the more powerful technology and science there is, the more we need philosophy, especially in the subjects of ethic, and in term of, how could be actually these technology beneficial to us

have you ever wonder why the modern men are mostly depressed, lonely, and unhappy?

I think the recent breakthrough like in Quantum Mechanics, and (not yet provable) String Theory will definitely need some philosophical dissection and treatment from the actual philosopher, (especially if String Theory proven to be true)

too many advancement and scientific discovery will only do shit to humanity and civilization in general if we just 'let it took it course' instead of managing it ethically to the benefit of humankind around the globe.

technology and scientific discovery are no solution to the betterness of mankind

what is the use being so advance but so many people around the globe hate each other, and in some part of the group just literally killing themselves

your theoretical physicist cannot decide what to do, what is the best for humankind, even with all proven hypotheses, data, and facts were now on his hand. he is just a middle man that somehow - using scientific technique - these yadda-yadda theories proven to be a fact. he is just a middle man, and society had no use for it.

of course he got no use for these facts, with the exception of able to use these new information to develop new technology/and feeding the shits - turned it into an industry and so on - but that's it. that is not an advancement that will improve people live.

with the megaverse size of the universe, we hardly able to know it all, or have every explanation of everything that happened on molecular, atomic, nano-size level. (even if we did, we still don't know shit what to do with those information)

>the truth
and no matter how advance the technology and scientific discovery is, there is always question left unanswered because human intelligence have its limit and not all scientific theory can be tested.

these questions, unanswered questions need philosophy
>why?
why we need philosophy? because human being are so fucked up. we need rational arguments, original thinking, and ethic to prevent us from living the harmless, and/or meaningless life.

>>10807497
>>10807530
I think who the image macro sides with is pretty obvious if you read the krauss quote where "only philosophers of science discuss philosophy of science" next to a quote from a nobel-prize winning physicist discussing philosophy of science.

>>10807813

i think we need philosophy as much as we need art, and as much as we need each other

we need each other to validify our self worth and our ego.

>without each other, to just to live alone would be quite unfulfilled life, resort to meaninglessness
imagine if the world finally resorts to nuclear war and (You) happened to be the only survivor.

for an individual to live alone on this earth, post-civilization era, he will lost his sense of identity, existentially ones ego need others, to preserve and validify ones meaning for life.

>>10805672
Unironically this

Man, /lit/ really is the dumbest board.

>>10805263

Scientisim, to which you adhere judging from your post, is a philosophy. Go and do something more substantive and thoughtful instead.

But philosophers are the ones asking the interesting questions.

>>10808042
How so?

>>10807649
How is the analytic-synthetic distinction a common sense? And if it is, why did Quine debunk it?
Formalizing this would be ∃(Pv~P), in a sence that if P is either true or false, then its negation will have the opposite properties
So, how do you debunk this "commun sense"?

>>10805269
>only science
Yeah, no. Once when science and philosophy are merged into one will we actually see some progress. Physics was called philosophy of nature, after all.

t. physicist

>>10805263
How can science be taken in a serious manner when it's foundation is based on false perceptions of our sense organs? pleb

>>10805580
I'm sorry, but you two straight-out have no idea how math and science works. No mathematician or science applies philosophical thinking to make new theories. They use in-field experience and knowledge.

You do not understand what they are saying.

>>10808262
>based on false perceptions of our sense organs? pleb

u wut m8

>>10805263
This thread shows exactly what's wrong with this place. We should sticky it so newfags know what they are dealing with.

>>10805395
>I mean we are still looking for an overarching view on physics that brings together general theory and quantum physics.
Nobody is looking for shit. The current model of quantum collapse is just plain wrong and magical and more and more people are starting to doubt it.
Academia is just taking it's sweet fucking time because the farts who praise it are alive.

ITT: philosophy undergrads militantly defend their poor life choices

>>10807597
Aristotle was a RATIONALIST. I HATE you contibabbies who literally do not read philosophy and instead base their judgements off second and third hand information. Locating essence inside the subject rather than outside of it is STILL radically metaphysical and would be considered as such by any scientist and philosopher working today (see Kripke, Putnam, etc.). Wean yourself off the Nietzsche please

>>10805263
>hurrrrrrrr why do we need ethics

>>10808144
It still is philosophy of nature, it's just grown so broad and diversified that it's no longer useful in most cases to call it such. It also implies that other philosophy has not got to do with nature, which is maybe not the best view of things. Still, the sciences are all fundamentally excursions of philosophy, and the reason we care about their discoveries is for their philosophical implications. That the known world has become more complex does not change the relationships of these parts.

>>10808998
I understand this is a troll thread but these sort of threads still make me nervous about how far into my phil minor I am

>>10809139
All I heard was blah blah blah would you like fries with that

>>10805263
There will be always new humans looking for meaning, some of them will find in philosophy the tools to try to find it.

>>10805294
The goal of science is to build a machine that keeps everyone unconcious and pumped full of dopamine.

>>10809195
Hey have you seen this movie the matrix? It's really cook and philosophical and stuff. I think you'd like it. Oh, also, have you read this guy, Chuck Palahniuk? He's just so fucking cool and edgy, you know what I mean?

>>10805263
but there are still elements of a functioning society that are wholly philosophy.
Medicinal ethics, science(epistemology), jurisprudence, politics. These are all branches of society that are entirely philosophically driven and operated

>Pleb filter /thread af

>>10809206
No. Do you recommend them?

>>10805263
r/samharris having a slow day or something?

>>10805263

Beyond Good and Evil. First Chapter. Read it.

Is this thread a bunch of retards arguing about the merits of logical positivism? Because I ain't bothering if it is.

>>10805263
>These ideas most people are able to come up with naturally by themselves, but when published by philosophers, become a part of a watershed moment in the field
Ah yes, how fondly I remember my childhood, whiling away the hours defining the structure of guilt as fundamentally ontological just to discover some jumped up German dickhead had thought he was clever by saying it in a book; however everyone in the playground already knew.

>>10809389
>Ah yes, how fondly I remember my childhood, whiling away the hours defining the structure of guilt as fundamentally ontological
This but unironically

>>10809389
I remember coming up with eternal return in middle school but hardly made the vitalist connection

>>10809369
Are you retarded?

>>10807478
Isn't Dawkins a (awful) philosopher more than anything else?

>>10809409
yes

>>10809413
Dawkins is a biologist. He became famous for the book the Selfish Gene which was a sort of rare occasion of being aimed at laymen but also forwarding new interpretations for scientists.

That book doesn't talk about humans much at all but it will prime you to think about behavior in sociobiological terms, which is hate think.

Is op gone? :(

>>10809895
Yes but this thread has pretty much died, and my opinion hasn't really changed.

>>10809918
You never expressed an opinion, you just rambled incoherently about half-understood philosophy and got buttmad when told your arguments had a philosophical basis.

>>10810158
>everything is philosophy!!!! so i'm technically correct, which is the best kind of correct!!!!
laughable.

if you broaden the meaning of words to the point where they're all-encompassing they lose all meaning.

>i define philosophy as arguing about stuff
>if you disagree with me then you're arguing so doing philosophy
>another victory for the universities :)
Enjoy your funding cuts you useless faggots.

>>10810158
Philosophy is made up of unverifiable arguments about things that are practically impossible to study; in other words, philosophy is guesswork. As a direct consequence, philosophy does not progress. Philosophers debated what the meaning of life was 2000 years ago, and philosophers still do' philosophy cannot even answer the questions it poses for itself.
Even worse, it can hinder knowledge (e.g. Aristotle's false claims about the world).
All the people in the thread claiming that philosophy leads to science makes me cringe when you know that philosophers considered great like Kant made claims about the geometry of space that mathematicians later overturned or how philosophers condemned general relativity because it messed up their conception of space and time.
Moreover, many philosophy texts are overly wordy and dense to hide the fact they are gibberish which only a few other "experts in the field" can understand. That doesn't help humanity, and it doesn't exemplify the pursuit of knowledge and its beauty.

Bump

>>10805289
Quine the Swine.

Science without philosophy is just finding the most optimal way to turn the entire humanity into paste.

>>10806466
So you're an expert on this thing you haven't ever learned about. I'm willing to bet you don't know much about science either.

>>10805263
Modern day Philosophy is linked closely with psychology and bio-psychology.

Also Political psychology is not developing at the same rate as humanities technological progress.

We are fucked.

>>10810188
>>10811286
Both good posts from opposite sides IMO.

What important piece of knowledge can any of you defending the proposition that philosophy is useful, explain to us using philosophy, that we could not have known otherwise?

>>10805263
god you are such a retarded, myopic memester. There are many points to touch on here, but I will only touch on one.

What about ethics? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me the study of ethics is useless?

>>10805263
>t. never read any philosophy of science retard STEMfag

>>10806229
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Read the Unabomber's manifesto, it might change your mind on that.

>>10811742
>What about ethics? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me the study of ethics is useless?
Yes.

>>10805341
you're probably just mad that you haven't read enough books to understand complex sentences. because if it's obscure to you it must mean the author is an idiot, right??

>>10811757

>>10811782
Not an argument.

Ethics is a pointless study because it achieves nothing.

Nobody carefully considers the ethical impact of their actions before taking them. At best people test their actions against what they already believe without examining their beliefs (e.g. weighing the civilian casualties against the military utility of an action, without examining the deeper beliefs which even motivate such a concern). More likely they act first and justify later.

Nothing has ever been done or not done on based on the ethical advice of philosophers.

This isn't surprising, because their advice is merely an opinion, no more valuable than the actor's own, so why should it be heeded?

>>10806229
>smashing rocks together to try and make a fire.
>cavemen used the scientific method to make fire

>>10811790
>Nobody carefully considers the ethical impact of their actions before taking them. At best people test their actions against what they already believe without examining their beliefs (e.g. weighing the civilian casualties against the military utility of an action, without examining the deeper beliefs which even motivate such a concern). More likely they act first and justify later.

Have you considered that most don't do this because they don't study ethics?

The closest that comes to it being studied is through religion. The seriously religious likely consider their actions more than your average joe. Not saying that the average joe doesn't make ethical considerations in his life, but in most cases they aren't thinking deeply about their intentions or actions.

I assure you, for those of us that do study and think about ethics, about being good people, philosophy informs much of our daily actions, and the types of lives we live, and probably more than others that only casually think about it.

>Nothing has ever been done or not done on based on the ethical advice of philosophers.
>what is Law

>no more valuable than the actor's own, so why should it be heeded?

You've got to be a really cocky person if you truly believe that you have all the answers locked away in your mind, especially without first having studied what is considered to be the cannon of a given topic, in this case, ethics.

>>10811790
why are you still in this thread a day later you raging faggot? you still havent accepted the fact that you are retarded?

>>10811818
I Won't let you have the last word

>>10805263
What is the shape of truth? How does it come to be known? Is it discovered through repeated observation? It is simply there, apparent to us?

As a test case, I would like to submit the study of Fourier Series. Joseph Fourier submitted his paper: "Mémoire sur la propagation de la chaleur dans les corps solides." It's a paper that talks about the propogation of heat in solid bodies. In it, Fourier makes the bold claim that any arbitrary function can be represented as the sum of an infinite series of sines and cosines, with some qualifiers.

The claim was completely unjustified. And, depending on your definition of arbitrary function, blatantly wrong. We still have not found a necessary condition which guarantees the pointwise convergence of a function to its fourier series; only sufficient conditions. His paper was found to be lacking in rigor by some of the greatest mathematical minds of his time.

The start of the study of Fourier series was not observation, not derivation; it was simply pure intuition. Fourier knew that most functions converged to their fourier series. The resulting field of study continues to be extremely useful, and new theorems still get proven (biggest recent one was in 1966, not too far away by math standards).

Mathematics is no different than philosophy. Each man has his own ideas about what is true, and sets out to find the conditions that make it true, then claims that those conditions are true. There is no universal first principles. People disagree even on basic things like the law of the excluded middle and the law of contradiction.

The mathematics/philosophy divide is non-existent. Philosophy tends to focus more on epistemology, phenomenology, metaphysics, and ethics, whereas math focuses on the philosophy of logic and numbers.

Science is slightly different than philosophy. Philosophy starts from the belief held by the philosopher and finds its conditions; Science claims to start from what is observed and find the governing rule behind them. But, the scientist is still involved. The main difference is really that Science has a means of testing a belief, whereas as epistemology, phenomenology, metaphysics, and ethics are harder to create tests for.

Even mathematics suffers from a "testing" problem of sorts. We often assume that infinity exists in mathematics. How can we test to see if this is true? Is there some resulting theorem that defies intuition that makes us reject that axiom? The axiom of choice results in "paradoxes" like the Banach-Tarski paradox. Do we reject this result as false and thus reject the axiom of choice, or do we accept the result as merely unintuitive? At the end of the day a man makes up his own mind about what he believes.

>>10807098
>dude, we can't trust our feelings
Brainlet argument.

>>10811790
>Nothing has ever been done or not done on based on the ethical advice of philosophers.

are you an actual fucking moron, or do you really think we've been living under constitutional democracies for millenia

>>10812718
People are really ignorant as to what extend the educated, influential, knowledgeable and powerful people of the past have actually been influenced by philosophers. According to their perception, the political arrangements that happen to envelop their world just happen to have sprung up through the shear grit of people who just did what they felt was right.