/lit/ - Literature

>>19977683
whats the difference?

I think so. Nothing worse than a philosopher or critical theorist who has an extremely shallow understanding of some idea from STEM and who woefully abuses it to try and give the veneer of rigour to their reckonings. 'Godel's incompleteness theorem, therefore something something Engels something something Derrida'

>>19977697
The difference between what? Philosophy and STEM?

One gives you a degree in Arts, and the other a Degree in Science.

>>19977683
wittgenstein
>do you think I'm stupid?
russell
>why are you asking me that?
w
>because if you think I'm stupid, I will cotinue to study Engineering, but if you don't, I will dedicate myself to philosophy

>>19977712
There are plenty of B.S and M.S track philosophy programs. They mostly focus on formal methods and scientific critique though. Like trying to find the root problem of the replicability crisis or trying to see how scientific structures shift over time, etc.

>>19977718
Wittgenstein is a bitchboy that got owned by popper

>>19977712
>The difference between what? Philosophy and STEM?
Yeah, that. Im not asking about college degrees you fucking retard, that should be obvious.

>>19977768
If you can’t tell the difference between the two fields, I’m afraid that you in fact are the retard

>>19977774
And if you cant see how they are inseparable you are of middle wit.

>>19977683
A good philosopher is a fox, not a hedgehog.

>>19977779
Atrocious handwriting

>>19977798

>>19977810
I love you too!

>>19977683
no because the difference would be a philosopher with knowledge in particular fields versus another philosopher who might have picked up trash for a living in a forest. both viewpoints are equally real

>>19977683
Analytic philosophy is literally STEMlords larping as "philosophers"

>>19977779
>>19977787
Hey, the Enlightenment’s end was centuries ago, things have changed since then.

>>19977718

>>19977683
>>19977699
yes, from the two cultures:
>A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

>>19977779

>>19977683
in my opinion, yes. Its hard though, the two fields have grown apart since Kant, and as a result being good in one does not easily translate into being good in the other, so at first glance its tempting to give up one and claim the other to be useless. But STEM is helplessly stuck, unable to properly question its own models and integrate its disconnected insights into a philosphy, and philosphy is self obsessed, becoming more and more a study about books, not about reality. Analytic philosophy tries to bridge the gap, but fails and ends up becoming either its own self contained niche, or a pointless addon to the sciences instead of being able to truly help enrich and progress it.

>>19979961
What drivel

>>19979623
Is the implication here that because those people aren’t autistic for physics, they’re on the same level as cavemen?

>>19977683
No. unless they're an ANALtard

>>19977683
>metaphysics
>without any prior math/physics

>>19980123
Those concepts are things you would know from basic high-school level physics, so yes, not knowing them does make you similar to a caveman

>>19978228
Hey it's okay sonny, just let us know if you need any help

>>19980030
i think its kind of cool

>>19977683
Imo only logic is essential, the rest depends on your interests.

>>19977683
An approach to computational calculus will help you better understand certain ideas like infinite regression, precision, granularity in measurements and other important aspects of "countable" and "uncountable" quantities. For logic, a semester or two of proof-based math courses can really strengthen your ability to discern highly abstract general qualities implied in arguments. Something like linear algebra teaches you to decompose sets of objects (numbers) into infinitely large but still highly distinct categories based off of general, immutable axioms. Finally, set theory and basic probability will infuse a more metric/quantitative (and therefore more precise) understanding of qualitative hierarchies and categories. You probably won't need something complex analysis, but everything a sophomore math major would be expected to know will help you approach a fairly broad spectrum of philosophical concepts.

tl:dr If you're already smart enough to study, remember and analyze the complicated ideas prevalent in philosophy, the equivalent of a mathematics minor will add structure to the way you envision certain abstract concepts. I think every university graduate should at least be able to work through the basics of single-variable calculus and some basic set theory.

>>19980320
Logic and math I'd say, at least geometry I should think.

>>19977699
Goedels incompleteness is not stem though. It's metalogic and most serious philosophers are well-versed in logic.

>>19977718
based

>>19980410
> Logic
> not STEM
KYS

>>19980320
You should have a firm grasp on physics and chemistry if you want to actually have a reality based philosophy.

>>19980768
No, it's the other way around. You need philosophy to argue that chemistry is a correct representation of reality. Or do you just "believe" it?

>>19977683
A student in STEM should have a strong understanding of philosophy and metaphysics

>>19980417
Logic is the most central thing in philosophy. EYS. Educate yourself.

>>19977697
>>19977768
you really thought that sounded smart, didn't you?

>>19980895
Then why even have students of philosophy and metaphysics if the STEM kids are just as good as them?

>>19980829
>MUH LYING SENSES

How about I fuck your wife, just to be sure?

>>19981980
Brilliant response, you sure showed him

"STEM" isn't real

>>19982545
Did you fail out of MATH1?

>>19977683
Can you really call yourself a lover of wisdom if you don't take an interest in the physical nature of reality and how it works?

In a normal civilization crafts and sciences were regarded as being dependent on divine principles, and thus would serve as a path of initiation to achieve an intimate knowledge of these principles(AKA Platonic Reminiscence). Of which when accomplished, would turn the craftsman/scientist into a priest of his particular craft/science. Because once the person reached this divine knowledge via his craft, he would return to see his craft as an expression of these divine principles. And so would begin embedding rituals into his work, and thus be working on a true masterpiece of his craft which would be an expression of this divine knowledge.

For example think of the runed weapons of the norse such as the Sæbø. The runes would be regarded as a divine knowledge obtained by Odin and passed down to humans, and so is expressed here in the craftsmanship of blacksmiths via ritual work combined with application of the knowledge of the particular craft.

But alas! much of modernity has erased even the possibility of transfiguring ones craft/science into ritual work. So you can keep on dabbling in endless practical/quantitative knowledge since the bridge between the divine and this world has mostly been severed...

>>19982561
>MATH1
What are you on about? All that shows up when I search for it is Chemistry and "Khan"-academy. Do you go on there or something?

>>19977683
should a STEM major also have a strong understanding of philosophy?

>>19982863
Yes. At the very least, you should study epistemology and philosophy of science so you don't turn into a smug dogmatic redditor. Bonus point if you study metaphysics for inspiration, as Einstein, Schroedinger, Pauli, etc. did.

>>19982621
Very interesting.
On one hand I think it's human nature as you improve to try and push the limit and embellish, but I could see that there being a spiritual/cultural and ritualistic component guiding this progress leads to a totally unique result.
We don't anything remotely close to this in the modern world.

>>19977683
Science already is Natural Philosophy.

>>19982621
t. retard with no knowledge of history of science whatsoever whose entire opinion on the subject comes from Guenon

also platonic reminiscence is not to be taken literally

>>19977683
STEM is irrelevant, however, STEMfags should know philosophy.

>>19977683
STEM is irrelevant, however, STEMfags should know philosophy.

It isn't necessary for all areas of philosophy, but philosophers should know when they're talking about when invoking scientific concepts or using scientific language.

>>19983580
This is true and also a flipside of the OP. It's just as painful watching a philosopher invoke scientific hypotheses as a justification for a philosophy.

>>19983116
Your knowledge of the history of science is probably limited to the 16h or 17th century onwards.

>>19983586
It absolutely isn’t. The burden is on you to prove how scientific inquiry and teaching, from Pythagoras studies of harmonics, Euclid’s geometry, Hippocrates medicine, Aristotelian astronomy, to Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo heliocentric model and Darwin theory of evolution (those last four being renaissance man but also deeply Christians, though Darwin became an atheist when he realised his theory was correct) was a “path of initiation“ towards some “divine principles. Of course you won’t because this statement is as speculative as it is meaningless. None of those men were “embedding rituals into their work“, either. Read books that aren’t written by traditionalists making shit up.

>>19980170
>tfw east euro
>faculty of philosophy
>0 math and geometry in curriculum
What do they even do there
Just parrot history? Most of them smoke weed around the building and larp as tankies

>>19982631
Literally the funniest reply to any post I’ve ever made, thanks for the laughs based retard

>>19981973
A strong understanding and mastery is not the same thing. A student in metaphysics or philosophy should seek to be a master of their field and the thought process therein to continue to drive the field, whereas a STEM student merely needs to follow the general line of thinking to have a strong understanding of metaphysics and philosophy. And vice versa is also true in that the STEM student should seek to be a master of their craft to drive their own field forwards.

>>19977683
Only if you're going to write about STEM. You don't want to become a pseud who uses words like "energy" and "quantum" and then have to make a definitional retreat when an actual physicist asks what you mean.

>>19977683
Of course.

i'd say you really want to know your calculus at the very least. not sure about physics/chemistry or whatever but you need that math

>>19977683
Yes, science is just applied philosophy but it might depend what philosophical branch you are interested in. I don't consider ethics and aesthetics to require knowledge of science but correct me if I'm wrong

>>19984900
Science is applied Mathematics

>>19984983
Mathematics is applied philosophy

>>19985006
How is that the case when much of mathematics is not applied?

>>19977740
Wittgenstein retroactively BTFO'd Popper by reducing every single philosophical statement (including every single epistemological and metaphysical claim) to an issue stemming from the use of language. Every single proposition is either tautological or it must necessarily be false.
Popper's falsifiability criterion is rendered null by the fact that something that is true will necessarily not be false.
>>19977787
Kant said what the difference between the two was in his first Critique - philosophy searches for the truth by establishing a limited set of first principles and deriving every single conclusion from there, whereas the physical sciences make use of induction to create general theorems and laws from a series of observed phenomena.

Learn the Trivium.

>>19985056
Mathematics applies logic for the sake of building systems and categories about how numbers operate and what relations different functions of numbers have between one another.
Symbolic logic is just as much a part of mathematics as it is of philosophy.

>>19985125
>Grammar
>Logic
>Rhetoric
Everybody learns about grammar in their native language at schools and sees syllogisms, sets, and Venn diagrams at some point in school too. I'm not sure if this is the case all around the world, but I remember I took several classes on communication and "effective writing" between elementary school and high school, which cover more or less the same topics as any book on rhetoric should contain. The trivium is just what comes at the start. Then comes the quadrivium, and after that specialization.

>>19985142
Mathematics is a non-material reality that has existed far before philosophy—an entirely human construct dependent entirely on language—was thought up. Both use logic, but logic was not a necessity for Egyptians or Babylonian farmers and engineers to use mathematics. You may be able to apply philosophy to mathematics, as Wittgenstein absurdly does with set theory, but mathematics is applied wholly independent of philosophy.

>>19985165
Arithmetic and geometry did exist thousands of years ago, but nobody uses the exact same notation or terminology that was used back then, and many of the results "proven" through methods then used would be thought of as not very rigorous and not adequately answering the questions they dealt with. One could, for example, criticize the ancients for not having a conception of negative or complex numbers, or Euclid for claiming that a pair of parallel lines remain at an equal distance from each other, which is not true in the case of a hyperbolic geometric system. Although one might choose to side with the belief that everything in mathematics is a priori true or a priori false, anyone who has read even the least bit about the history of mathematics will know that many fields within mathematics only began to be discussed and explored once a few of their basic underlying premises were settled, and that even these premises can be altered if necessary for the sake of greater generalizations.
This does not mean that mathematics is a branch of philosophy, for any serious-minded person acquainted with both will acknowledge that their methods and objectives are quite distinct, but instead that, mathematics, just like philosophy, relies on logic, and that it can expand or be modified over time.

>>19980123
>mass
>knowing this is autism
ok.

This board puts philosophy on a pedestal even though it is almost entirely irrelevant to reality and the application of knowledge. It does not explain, it only attempts to explain or to diminish another sect of philosophy. It works to inflate the ego of the philosopher and those who deem it of vast importance as they ponder why.
You have all ruined this board.

>>19980829
Do you just believe in your reason?

>>19977683
>it's a Plato starts babbling about geometry again episode
getting tired of this trope anons

>>19977683
yeah probably. Somewhat related though I hate when I'm digging through a philosopher's works and there's a ton of shit about the nature of matter or space or whatever that we now know is total bullshit because of science but you still kinda have to read it if you're gonna understand their worldview

>>19980170
>meta means maths
eek ook

>>19977683
>>19977697
Philosophy defines STEM and created it

>>19982863
I think any scientist ought to have a good working understanding of ethics specifically

>>19985489
Astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and medicine all existed prior to the birth of Thales of Miletus.

>>19985503
If philosophers can't convince each other about whether means or ends are more important in dedicing what makes one action better than another, why should scientists study them?
>inb4 because train dilemma memes are cool
>inb4 because then I can call them out for wasting their time reading about spooks

>>19985557
>Thales invented Philosophy

How does it feel to be this retarded?

>>19977718
The problem is most people are stupid.
You need both tho, at least mathematics and there aint no philosophy of mind without informatics.

>>19985600
Can you define philosophy in a way that keeps it separate from religion and mythology? Is cosmogony part of "philosophy"? Is physics "philosophy"? Is any claim ever made by any human philosophical? Is language itself inherently philosophical?
If all of these are philosophical, then is philosophy merely a blanket word for anything and everything that is thought of?

>>19985635
You can use mathematics to create a computational model of a hypothetical machine that could perform a group of funcions that the human mind can too, but it wouldn't necessarily tell you how the human mind works, only that you know that it perform a certain group of tasks, and that a machine could do them too.

>>19985479
When Aristotle lectured on Metaphysics, he was clearly expecting his students to both know about arithmetic and to have attended his previous lessons on physics, since he gave an extremely brief summary of the latter in his Metaphysics, and also gave a lecture on the origin of numbers (which obviously presupposes a knowledge of what numbers are).
A contemporary philosopher discussing metaphysics should at least know about the foundations of mathematics and have a good understanding of the preliminary assumptions of modern physics in order to deal with them.

>>19980123
you can even see the fedora tipping when you read the quote

>>19985260
>needing a definition of mass to know that murder is wrong

Yes, Autism

>>19984302
So do you go on Khanacademy for Math now? I don't know why you would brag about that sh1t in your original post.

>>19986676
Based retard

>>19985165
>but logic was not a necessity for Egyptians or Babylonian farmers and engineers to use mathematics
Of course it was, Logic is apriori generalizations of scientific reasoning, that's what it all is.

>>19985265
Your brain is rotten from popscience and Reddit faggie, no STEMtard has achieved anything of importance in the last 100 years and before that they actually took epistemological questions and Math more seriously. Everything you do is use outdated formulas, a Joe Rogan listener has a nearer and more interesting relationship to reality than you. Good luck trying to beat the game of science with the 90% reproducibility level!

>>19985265 #
Your brain is rotten from popscience and Reddit faggie, no STEMtard has achieved anything of importance in the last 100 years and before that they actually took epistemological questions and Math more seriously. Everything you do is use outdated formulas, a Joe Rogan listener has a nearer and more interesting relationship to reality than you. Good luck trying to beat the game of science with the 90% non-reproducibility level!

>>19986772
>relativity, quantum mechanics, computer and the internet all happened in the last 100 years
>no STEMtard has achieved anything of importance in the last 100 years
genuinely can’t tell if you’re trolling

>>19985665
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

>>/sci/14264000

>>19985557
Thales of Miletus invented the mathematical proof too IIRC so at the very least the field of mathematics proper started with him as well.

>>19986881
Are you? Cybernetics were invented by Leibniz

>>19987115
Leibniz isn't Turkish

>>>/sci/14264090
>Philosophy is nothing but mental masturbation

>>19987197
Damn, I always knew sci was the dumbest board

>>19987197
There's no point in those kinds of discussions, at this point.
They are entirely vapid, they rely on no analytic or empirical information, and generate nothing. It's paradoxically an opinion and nothing else. To simply say "philosophy is mental masturbation" means nothing, because it's not "philosophy is just mental masturbation based on these reasons." And I could come up with counterexamples to the "no-bearing on mathematical.... etc. skills," given that Leibniz discovered calculus.
To drift from the point of pure opinion to reasoned discussion, however, would be philosophy.

>>19987197
/sci/ and /lit/ seem to have a slow-burning rivalry between the two of them. It's usually autistic derision cast in /lit/'s direction, which is all the same. Whenever someone comes over just to mock us they get BTFO by all the STEM degree holders here, so it works out.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/12928085