Philosophy is just meaningless mental masturbation of midwits that makes them feel smart

[Anonymous No.14806896]

The intelligent quantify and analyse.
Prove me wrong.
Protip: can't

[Anonymous No.14806901]

quantify that statement

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !Q8LAxrN6rU No.14806905]

>quantify
you mean count?
>analyze
what do you think philosophy is?
>midwits
anon, I have some bad news..

[Anonymous No.14806923]

>>14806896
>The intelligent quantify and analyse.
This proposition doesn't quantify anything. If we accept it, we need to conclude that your statement comes from an idiot

[Anonymous No.14806930]

>>14806905
>anon, I have some bad news..
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.14806942]

>>14806901
>>14806905
>>14806923
You retards really SEETHE hard when called out on your midwittery.

[Anonymous No.14807927]

>>14806896
>using the wow midwit unironically

[Anonymous No.14807936]

>>14807927
>bumping this thread

[Anonymous No.14807949]

>>14806896
philosophy isnt inherently midwit, but its bar of entry is quite low since it doesn't require rigorous quantitative reasoning, like mathematics. so its perfect for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.14807952]

>>14806896
>The intelligent quantify and analyse.

[Anonymous No.14807955]

>>14807949
You have no idea what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.14807963]

>>14806896
>I am very smart

[Anonymous No.14807993]

Imagine a room filled to the brim with pseuds obsessed with asserting verbal dominance over each other disputing philosophical arguments which are in most cases not even their own in the fashion of a pretentious debate club, all for the sake of bolstering ego. That is philosophy, or the modern take of it. An adapted ape battle of the most well spoken.

[Anonymous No.14808041]

>>14807993
Nope, not even close.

[Anonymous No.14808050]

>>14806896
>quantify
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14808058]

you might say, that it is "concept-creation"

[Anonymous No.14808136]

>>14806896
So is science and mathematics. You have as little of a chance of understanding the world as philosophers.

[Anonymous No.14808140]

>>14806896
>The intelligent quantify and analyse

No they don't. They don't care

[Anonymous No.14808201]

>>14807949
this is true. philosophical enquiry did initiate the germination of a countless number of important and rigorous disciplines. maths, natural science, economics, social science... all of these started off as philosophical writings.
but these fields evolved, some more than others. the general philosophical method is not effective way of obtaining knowledge, which is why the scientific method has supplanted it.
> hurr durr muh continental, science isn't the only way to obtain knowledge REEEEEE
then find me another way. show me how your non-scientific method can uncover the geometric structure of the universe, or demonstrate the capability of creating atomic bombs.
> but existence is more than what we perceive, you're just a dimwit arguing in scientism
fucking prove it, then. oh wait, you can't because the philosophical method has as much potency as occult rituals.

>>14807955
> Seething this hard
just admit that the countless hours you've spent masturbating over some old dead cunt's obsolete theories haven't made your parents appreciate you more.

>>14808058
yeah, i'll give you that. see my first point.
however, the creation and, read carefully, *the skilful manipulation* of concepts was perfected by the mathematical method. you can create as many concepts as you want, but your concepts being truly meaningful only in a mathematical framework.

>>14808136
which is why scientists and mathematicians have pushed the human condition further in a hundred years than philosophers have in two thousand?
see, this is why I treat philosophy students with disdain whenever I'm unfortunate enough to meet them. they're a strange breed: utterly useless, but so arrogant and confident in their uselessness.
Cope.

[Anonymous No.14808231]

>>14808201
>just admit that the countless hours you've spent masturbating over some old dead cunt's obsolete theories
You have no idea what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.14808234]

>>14808201
Philosophy students know more mathematics and science than you do, asshat.

[Anonymous No.14808235]

>>14808231
Then what is it? Because academic philosophy is just that.

[Anonymous No.14808238]

>>14808234
No they really, really don't.

[Anonymous No.14808243]

>>14808235
Academic philosophy general does not discuss work published before 1950. It is mostly concerned with work published within the last decade. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14808246]

>>14808238
Yes, they really do. Sounds like you have never met one.

[Anonymous No.14808247]

>>14806896
>philosophy is mental masturbation of midwits that makes them feel smart
You do realize this statement is inherently philosophical, right?

[Anonymous No.14808252]

>>14808231
>>14808234
honestly, if you can prove me wrong I'd happily admit my mistakes, then go away and start reading actual philosophy. but if these are the best rebuttals you can come up with, then you really are all just a bunch of sorry, useless cunts and I genuinely feel sad for that you're the way that you are.

[Anonymous No.14808259]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

John Stunningly Based Mill.

[Anonymous No.14808261]

>>14808252
Trust me, you are 100% wrong. If you want actual reading suggestions, you'll have to be more specific as to what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.14808274]

>>14808243
> "I argue that if David Lewis’ modal realism is true, modal realists from different possible worlds can fall in love with each other. I offer a method for uniquely picking out possible people who are in love with us and not with our counterparts. Impossible lovers and trans-world love letters are considered. Anticipating objections, I argue that we can stand in the right kinds of relations to merely possible people to be in love with them and that ending a trans-world relationship to start a relationship with an actual person isn’t cruel to one’s otherworldly lover.”
there's your academic philosophy, you sappy twat. fuck off now, will you

>>14808246
bruh I'm literally a doctoral student in mathematical physics. the chances that the average philosophy student knows know maths and physics than I do is pretty slim.

>>14808261
why don't you tell me where I'm wrong, then? because so far, you cunts haven't offered a single actual rebuttal aside from just telling me I'm wrong and embarrassing yourselves in the process

[Anonymous No.14808281]

>>14808274
>bruh I'm literally a doctoral student in mathematical physics.
You don't even understand Bell's theorem. There is no fucking way you are a graduate student in mathematical physics.

[Anonymous No.14808290]

>>14808246
I have studied philosophy for four years at my local University. We are all stupid and know neither math nor science nor philosophy. Those who do know math and science are certified autists and/or weirdos with faulty knowledge. Of the Students, 98% shouldnt even study philosophy (myself included). Also: I'm not american. I pay 700€ per year to study.

[Anonymous No.14808292]

>>14808274
Wow, LARPing as a physicist now? You are really committed to this tragic bait thread.

[Anonymous No.14808302]

>>14808281
I can prove Bell's theorem, dickhead
>>14808292
no u
I bet your dad wonders where he went wrong in raising you every night.

[Anonymous No.14808311]

If science didn’t exist we would still be living as hunter-gatherers, going out on adventures, hunting with bros, hanging out with our tightly knit group, telling campfire stories and coming up with little dances. Fuck science.

[Anonymous No.14808312]

>>14808290
If you're in the EU then you are likely not even studying philosophy in your philosophy program. Lots of European departments adhere to French-style pseudo-philosophy. See "Impostures Intellectuelles" (Fashionable Nonsense) by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.

[Anonymous No.14808314]

>>14808302
>I can prove Bell's theorem, dickhead
That's trivial, brainlet. Understanding the implications is harder.

[Anonymous No.14808315]

>>14808274
That was clearly a joke article.

[Anonymous No.14808317]

>>14808312
The stupid man’s go-to reddit handbook of I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.14808321]

>>14808317
Fuck off, mongoloid. This thread is about philosophy, not your incoherent ramblings.

[Anonymous No.14808332]

>>14808321
There’s nothing wrong or incoherent about pointing out that stupid people cling to Sokal’s book when talking about “continental” philosophy. You can always tell they’ve never read the book and, worst still, don’t know anything about philosophy. It’s usually a stupid American student studying counterfactuals or indexicals like a screeching autist.

[Anonymous No.14808335]

>>14808312
I'm studying in Germany. We are primarily analytical. Hume is our big daddy. Besides logic and stuff we do philosophy of science, some Kant, and a little bit (really only tangentially) of Marx, Adorno etc.

[Anonymous No.14808344]

>>14808335
The best undergraduate background for graduate study of philosophy is actually mathematics and physics.

[Anonymous No.14808350]

>>14808332
Continental "philosophy" is straight-up obscurantist garbage. It's not philosophy in any sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.14808361]

>>14808344
Yeah, probably. Then again, what is most important, I think, is persistency and preciseness. You can learn that in every field. Or maybe only in some. Or not at all.

[Anonymous No.14808371]

>>14808201
You’re being absurd, philosophy (that isn’t natural philosophy - or what would now be called science) is pretty explicit about being concerned with things that can’t be quantified but inspire curiosity anyway. If you think that’s a ‘useless’ enterprise then fine, I don’t think any philosopher is seriously suggesting that they provide as much day to day utility as a greengrocer or a nuclear engineer. But as others have said, this sentiment is a philosophical one, how are you gonna quantify it? How many joules of energy are produced by philosophy? How many loaves of bread made? Ridiculous.

So if you’re so against philosophy why are you making a philosophical statement? Because you think it’s a useful thing to do.

[Anonymous No.14808374]

>>14806942
>I don’t have a cogent response to the points being made so I’ll iust double down on everyone else being a midwit but me
Midwit logic

[Anonymous No.14808393]

>>14806896
You’re easily proven wrong by the fact that not all intelligent/analytical pieces of work involve quantities.

[Anonymous No.14808398]

>>14806896
Nice philosophy, retard

[Anonymous No.14808400]

>>14808201
>show me how your non-scientific method can uncover the geometric structure of the universe, or demonstrate the capability of creating atomic bombs
>the only kinds of knowledge that exist are mathematics and instructions on how to make weapons
What to know how I can tell that you’re autistic?

[Anonymous No.14808405]

>>14808400
give it to me, faggot

[Anonymous No.14808451]

>>14808405
>midwit who doesn’t understand the value of philosophy also doesn’t understand what a hypothetical question is
Lmao

[Anonymous No.14808453]

>>14808451
>hypothetical
*rhetorical