/lit/ - Literature

>>13401548
nice bait, but no.

There are countless things that only philosophy can answer but that science can.

I think what you meant to say was that there's nothing more in philosophy to discover, it's sort of run into a dead end as of this century, while science still has a long way to go.

Either way, sage.

>>13401576
that science can't.*

>>13401548
Science is a branch of philosophy.

>>13401548
do noumena exist?

>>13401576
>>13401594
>m-my philosophy PhD isn't useless!

80% of philosophy is social sciences
20% is semantic garbage

>>13401607
Whether you mean noumena as mental abstractions, or Kant's thing-in-itself, yes both exist, obviously.

What's your point? Science is the attempt to reveal more and more of the latter - chemistry can tell us more about the thing-in-itself than our senses ever could've alone.

It still can't paint the whole picture, which might be impossible from our perspective, but how does philosophy help in that regard

>>13401616
cope more

>>13401594
i bet you think astronomy is a branch of astrology too

>>13401576
>announcing sage
do fuck off

>>13401638
>Not ONE (1) good example where Philosophy can trump sciences

Exactly, cope more

>>13401632
>making positive statements about the thing-in-itself
Dude stop please

https://youtu.be/i_bSRFqbV-E
This is what you retards look like when you larp like this

Why are anime incels always the most retarded posters? Your very statement is a philosophical one science could not communicate, whatever you mean by “science” anyway

>>13401632
I've never seen such a poor understanding of Kant's philosophy before.

>>13401716
That's because he doesn't understand. He's just using a buzzword

>>13401632
no it can't, it can only tell us what it is possible within a certain paradigm to know about a thing-in-itself. science cannot answer questions it cannot falsify, or questions that it doesn't know exist

>>13401632
no it can't, it can only tell us what it is possible within a certain paradigm to know about a thing-in-itself. science cannot answer questions it cannot falsify, or questions that it doesn't know exists

>>13401747
>>13401753
Knowledge of the thing-in-itself is impossible
Knowledge of the thing-in-itself is impossible

>>13401685
where did I do that? I said tell us more about it, not everything about it. Besides, I'm being charitable by defining noumena as the actual workings of the natural world independent from human limitation/subjectivity.

If you literally mean "thing-in-itself" there is no such thing, since "things" are defined by humans by placing arbitrary subjective boundaries. This is the abstraction, the platonic ideal. But it obviously doesn't correlate with reality. The named tao is not the eternal tao.

Science is doing more work on figuring out the former than philosophy ever could

>>13401632
>chemistry can tell us more about the thing-in-itself than our senses ever could've alone.

ahahahahahaHAHAHAAHAH

horrendous

>>13401548
Is it wrong to sacrifice the individual for group? And please dont respond with some utilitarian retard shit :^)

>>13401769
>Besides, I'm being charitable by defining noumena as the actual workings of the natural world independent from human limitation/subjectivity.

that is not how Kant defines it. noumena have only a negative existence, the "workings of nature" is a positive statement. you don't know what you're talking about.

There are no "workings of the natural world independent of human limitation/subjectivity" that it is possible to make truth-valued statements about.
Abstractions are different form the "thing-in-itself". Don't toss around terms you don't understand because you think they sound cool

Keep reading that Laozi though

>>13401769
>>13401817
Sorry there was supposed to be a response link in that my b

>>13401548
Western science can't explain the practical application of universal metaphysics. In a seething fit of envy and intellectual despair, the Western Scientist™ projects his own self-loathing onto the Ineffable Truths which forever evade him, and dismisses such Truths as /pseudoscience/.

>>13401798

"noumena...is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception"

"Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation"

sound like positive definitions to me. are you defining it as "only the component of things which is unknowable in any way to humans"?
Btw Kant lived and died before we discovered the atomic model

>>13401548
Wrong

>>13401548
Philosophy is the future of science and is also why they exist in the first place. Like, math is founded in Logic, which is, that's right, you guessed it. I don't even have to type it but I will. Logic has foundations in philosophy.
MEANINGLESS BROTHER WAR BULLSHIT
YOU'RE ATTACKING YOUR OWN GROUP DUMMY

>>13401836
the atomic model has no bearing on Kant's philosophy, he would say we already conditioned to perceive reality atomistically so it should come no surprise that we do. stop posting

>>13401817
>not...possible to make truth-valued statements about.
Not the whole truth, but science knows that. The main human limitation is having to exist through time, for instance, which neither science nor philo can solve. However, science chips at the frontiers of the whole truth of nature in every other way.

Yes of course they are different if you prefer my first definition. I'm just saying "thing-in-itself' is bit of a misnomer, since positing any "thing" is introducing human subjectivity. The only possible "thing-in-itself" is the undivided universe as a whole.

>>13401862
No reply to the use of positive definitions I see. Maybe it's better I stick to one point per post lest you get distracted.

>>13401548
what can science even do but make change/observations about the physical? ...w-wait... you aren't a... materialist are you? oh dear.

>>13401852
Godel showed that Math literally can't be founded in logic

>>13401912
and media is the science of the spiritual. any more realms besides those two you have in mind

>>13401753
Exactly, completely agree.

>>13401766
explain, big-brained religious fundamentalist, if the thing-in-itself is the workings of the universe, how it is impossible to gain knowledge about these workings.
If the thing-in-itself is divorced from the workings of the universe, and is not the cause of our experiences/phenomena, then how can you say it exists at all?

>>13401969
bruh you gain knowledge same as every other thing: observing phenomena

>>13401576
You have gone from writing fiction yourself to denouncing the entire field in the span of like 12 hours.
In a year you'll have a completely different opinion.

>>13401969
"thing-in-itself"is Kant's designation to all that is inaccessible by experience. It could be some the workings of the universe, but not the ones that we use science (applied and regimented experience) to discover and understand. The entire universe is phenomenon in so far aswe experience it. Nothing can be said about the rest with any certainty, and any such statement can never be proved either true or false.

ITT: Brainlet is too dumb to understand Kant

>>13401698
Is this the female Destiny?

>>13401698
i hate women

>>13402023
It if can't cause anything phenomenal how can people claim it exists?

>>13402111
It's defined negatively. People don't claim it exists, it's just the designation for everything that isn't phenomenal. It could be an uncountable infinity or the empty set. It's like defining the reals as the subset of complex numbers (a+bi) where b equals zero. It's totally legal.

>>13401698
That's the idea

>>13401680
Metaphysics.

>Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. But man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else’s; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test.

https://www.chesterton.org/the-revival-of-philosophy-why/

>>13401576


>>13401576
I don't think this is true either. I feel like there are near limitless ways to interpret reality and so it's hard to say that "everything has been thought up"

>>13401548
>There is nothing in philosophy you can ponder that sciences cannot explain
But that is entirely and utterly wrong and the number of counter examples are endless.
Morality, Ethics, Foundations of the science and mathematics, etc. are all completely inaccessible to the scientific method.

Science can only really function in very specific circumstances in which you can classify the objects, make controlled experiments and are fine with "is" results, as "ought" results, fundamentally, can not be derived scientifically.

The question, eg. "What are the foundational axioms of mathematics" can, on a very fundamental level, not be answered by science.

Science can even explain what numbers are.

>>13401797
Is there a god? And plz don't respond with some god-believing shit

>>13401548
Give me a scientific rational for morals?

>>13401594
based

>>13401680
>>Not ONE (1) good example where Philosophy can trump sciences
value theory dumbass

>>13402127
You seem to suggest that it's something that exists in abstract, divorced from physical objects, which would make sense to me.

But there's also a lot of writing suggesting that it's the counterpart of something phenomenal,
>"At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves. For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears—which would be absurd"

What is so noumenal about the "something that appears"? We can explain the cause of its appearance in phenomenal terms down to the atomic level, to explain why it has the colour/feel that it does.
If I look at an orange, what is the thing-in-itself? Is it Plato's ideal orange and all its related affordances? Is it the latent pi in the orange? The history and destiny of its constituent atoms, even though in the present a monkey and I could agree that "objectively" it is a tasty set of atoms? Is it the soul of the orange?

If we existed in Conway's Game of Life, would the rules governing the cells/universe be noumena?
Or are they only noumena if we as observers inside the phenomena of the game could not deduce those rules and in doing so render the future deterministic

>>13401680
shut the fuck up and go dilate, tranny

To the amazement of all witnesses, Immanuel Kant rose from the grave today. No one could say how; Kant himself only asked for a coffee and a newspaper. They brought him a coffee, but rather than stick him with a newspaper, none of which are of much value these days, they put him in front of a computer and left him to explore the wonders of cyberspace. If it were not for the tragedy before him, who knows what may have been? What wonders he may have given us? Alas, Kant instead read this very thread and decided to put a fucking bullet in his zombie brain rather than exist with you degenerates

>>13401698
I am a Catholic. But right now I'm really asking myself the following: If God is real, why did he create Twitch Thots?

>>13401548
>There is nothing in philosophy you can ponder that sciences cannot explain
Ever heard of the problem of induction?

>>13401548
Describing the physical world only gets you so far.

>>13401698
>please explain how gravity works
>sure, easy!
nobody on earth knows how gravity works you fucking THOOOOT

>>13401548
transcend