[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Does /r9k/ like philosophy?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001

Thread replies: 120
Thread images: 48
File: step1.png (20 KB, 380x361) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20 KB, 380x361
Does /r9k/ like philosophy?
I would say /r9k/ likes it when it suits our purposes.
File: Kanthole.jpg (90 KB, 480x320) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
90 KB, 480x320
I've read Kant, Witty, the spook master and am fluent in formal logic
It's quite interesting to think about that kind of stuff, but ultimately it's pointless. There's not really a usage of it besides mindfucking reddits with quotes.
I regard philosophy the same way as religion. Everyone should study it, but never take it to heart or treat it like some sort of guide to life
Everyone has philosophy that they live by.
File: are you for reals.jpg (123 KB, 900x900) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
are you for reals.jpg
123 KB, 900x900
Reading thoughts of people with hopefully good prose elevates you.
And it's entertainment too, sometimes. Like a non-interactive forum, but with better text. What do you do here?

And what's not pointless? There is a truth behind the wageslave meme.
I mean formal, academic philosophy, the one they public and study.
Sure you can be retarded and call everything philosophy because technically it is
I enjoy ancient/medieval philosophy (pre-Enlightenment). Modern philosophy seems too dry.
Well, if you enjoy it, it's not pointless. What I know from philosophy is that there is no universal truth. Of course I could start every post with 'In my opinion...' but then I probably would get less (You)s.
Given how a large part of our culture was formed by philosophers and philosophers (may it be the invention of bureaucrats, the school system, ideologies like nationalism, openness of trade system, the bill of human rights etc.),
it's silly to dismiss it that way.
File: 1439879240971.jpg (93 KB, 700x530) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
93 KB, 700x530
I came up with a theory when I was off my face once:

Philosophy is the focal point of how humans work, as it is an abstract into understanding how the mind works; and it interacts with two main elements of human culture: Art and Science.
When a civilisation is dominated by art, it combines with philosophy to make religion.
When civilisation is dominated by science, it combines with philosophy to make atheistic beliefs.

Both of these are too absolute to be constructive to civilisation, therefore both arts and sciences must be embraced in order to have a healthy collective philosophy.

Well it made sense high, and I still like the idea now.
I've never been one for philosophy, but someone posted the meditations of Marcus Aurelius audiobook on /t/ awhile back and I rather enjoyed it.

Am I a philosopher now?

In my opinion that's a load of horseshit. Stoics and their absolute relativism make me sick.
File: 1447185188007.jpg (94 KB, 465x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
94 KB, 465x600
Just starting to get into it. I'm almost d9be with Plato and I've read Meditations and The Nichomachean Ethics.

What did Kant say that would warrant that? I'd get Schopenhauer on women but who else is edgy?
Anybody know where epistemology goes after Bundle Theory? I'm guessing Kant but I haven't read him yet. Rationalism? Does it all just culminate(or loop back around) that we can't be sure of it obtain knowledge?
File: 1447192113146.jpg (22 KB, 480x311) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
22 KB, 480x311
Gonna throw some shit out there, I have those dumb idea that everything eventually boils down to a paradox in some way. It doesn't really make sense for there to even be paradoxes. Anyone know of any good ways to reconcile being with non-being? There is the Munchhausen Trilemma though.
File: merrily merrily.jpg (44 KB, 364x561) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
merrily merrily.jpg
44 KB, 364x561
After getting into philosophy it made me think how strange it was that people were so convicted in life. There are people that die for ideologies. But why be so convicted? The odds are not in your favor. There either isn't an answer, you are right, or you are wrong. Why be so divided by ideas if they are so fluid and we so ignorant? Then again what is a man if not his ideas?
File: Camus.jpg (211 KB, 1462x1750) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
211 KB, 1462x1750
keep on reading, bre

File: 1394756546231.png (575 KB, 716x716) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
575 KB, 716x716
non-applicable philosophy is disgusting, monotonous, ego-stroking garbage.
Psychology is where it's at
philosophy is a meme
File: 1450462090173.png (76 KB, 959x573) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
76 KB, 959x573
Does Camus deal with that sorta shit? Know if anyone that does? How far along are you? Any tips for someone about to go down the rabbit hole?
retard, as if psychology is a real science.
muh subjectivity
File: 1442513442486.png (94 KB, 1435x478) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
94 KB, 1435x478
Did reading Stirner actually add anything of importance or do you just shitpost better?

An interesting point. Similar to the hemisphere's of the brain, human intellect consists of analysis and imagination that both must be nurtured to maintain happiness. The balance between pleasure and responsibility maintains society. A civilization steeped into an extreme of one or the other crumbles beneath the rebellion of its citizens.

who's the spook master?
File: philomap.gif (58 KB, 748x818) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
58 KB, 748x818
The existentialist are the ones saying you should "find your own right way".
The start (chronologically) is Kierkegaard, who says you should choose one thing and grow in it (and don't just escape to hedonism or work routine, instead work towards a high goal you defined ... and btw. have faith in a Christian god, because there is no truth so you just gotta go with this sort of personalized but hopefully good morale ("leap of faith" is an expression that stems from him)).
In the middle is Nietsche (and the /lit/ meme Stirner) who says you should just disregard the needs of all around you and aquire power, so that nobody can fuck your shit up (and it's in turn the edgy side of things).
Camus then says there is no way to win, nothing makes sense, embrace it (embrace it, without becoming a nihilist who suffers from this insight)

The philosphers who are not on the existential (i.e. individualistic) side usually care for setting up the best system (Kant, Hume, etc.) for a state/society ... they at least think there can be a global improvement or moral to strive towards.
File: 1434148452112.jpg (43 KB, 800x534) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
43 KB, 800x534
Self-proclaimed egoist and renowned meme philosopher Max Stirner
File: stirner.gif (9 KB, 279x305) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
9 KB, 279x305
Max Stirner
AfaIk he was some literal who that wrote like one thing and called a lot of ideas that might have been a bit too abstract "spooks." Then again I've never read him nor a wiki article either, I just know he's a meme
Well I guess if society were disposed towards science, they'd become apathetic to varying degrees (total apathy to not really feeling like having children (waste of money really, not like we'd get an opportunity) or caring for the future) and man would die out, but if we didn't care that wouldn't really be a bad thing right? Of course, the remaining next generation wouldn't have that scientific support from a lot of the previous generation, but still
File: Stirner_pepe.jpg (15 KB, 500x382) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
15 KB, 500x382
A society dominated by religion will be manipulated and extorted by the higher powers, or progress in thinking will be limited by the fear of damnation. A society dominated by sciences, or rather the loss of god, will result in a large percentage of the public living "immoral" lives, see the various "evil" cities in the old testament, or even now, where previously disgusting habits are becoming normal.

I've always thought of philosophy as dealing with existence on your own terms. Adhering directly to a school of thought is as bad as organised religion. Where I identify strongly with absurdism, I still don't entirely agree with everything stated. I just see philosophy as people saying what they think, a big pool of human intuition, mixed with creativity and science, and the one that resonates with you is often unique.
File: 1450220896074.jpg (179 KB, 960x822) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
179 KB, 960x822
Thanks for the help man. Got any favorites? What do you personally subscribe to existentially?
File: albert-camus.jpg (202 KB, 1381x874) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
202 KB, 1381x874
Not that guy
firstly see the second paragraph of >>25813241
secondly if you're a sad fellow, the german thinkers like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche would be good. People like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus bring forward a more clinical and darkly optimistic side of this "sad philosophy".

This side seems to resonate most strongly with me. Some of the social aspects of Nietzsche and his contemporaries aren't too relevant (aside from his assessment of the slave mindset), but its very interesting to see how people have had these thoughts always.

Also camus is a qt
Bump for more robot philosophy
File: 1448600515100.jpg (670 KB, 1000x3004) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
670 KB, 1000x3004
Ja feel. I look forward to reading Schopenhauer and I identify with absurdism to a degree even though it doesn't feel too satisfying.
>be philosopher

what's the point?
File: 1452715579213.jpg (108 KB, 540x562) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
108 KB, 540x562
this hits the nail on the head tbqh
Camus is my idol. Ever since I read Sisyphus, I just couldn't get over his style of writing and had to read his books and essays. He is a qt. Though he kinda aged like milk.
I find useful and unpractical stuff in everything posted.
Kierkegaards call to a dedication is, for me, the only way I see not to be down. Invest some time in getting to know ways of living and then sticking to some goal for some years. You'll end up somewhere more interesting that if you just stick where you are. A good weekly timetable helps. I don't know what the trick to non-lazyness is.
Stirner points out how you can choose to disregard any ideology that doesn't suit yiu at the current moment ("I'm A vegetarian, so I can't do X", "I'm a moslem, so I must do Y", "I'm A good person, so I will never Z". Those rules you out above yourself, maybe above your own interests even, are what he calls spooks) His boom is clever (and funny) but unpractical.
People like Nietzsche (or also Hegel to me) will come up with ways to look at things that blows your mind. They trick logic sometimes, by offering new axioms that then solve problems. Good to read, but this will always only lead to more doubt - you're warned.
Sorry for the smartphone keyboard issues
File: 1445558124202.jpg (227 KB, 1173x392) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
227 KB, 1173x392
You are doing philosophy lol
Even if you could create bilogical immortality that doesn't stop you from getting BTFO by a bus. The truly scary thing isn't death though it's "life." Extrapolating philosophical implications from empirical data such as the change of matter in your body in 10 years time creates a sense that "you" are always dying. I don't mean this in the one day closer to death way, but in the way that you are not the same self as 10 years ago, therefore the past self being dead in a way. You don't even need sense data to come up with similar conclusions though.
TL;DR the scariest thing isn't death; it's that life is an illusion.
File: Explaining It.png (123 KB, 311x175) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Explaining It.png
123 KB, 311x175

Consider the following.

The year is 343 BC. Phillip the II of Macedon is at a decision point, and must find a tutor for his son. There are few candidates worthy of this position, and Phillip was a practical man. He was raised with a military and diplomatic education to be an adequate ruler, and thus wants a similarly practical education for this son.

The greatest Academy in the world is that of the late Plato, whose nephew Speusippus had taken over. Most educated men of the time would have considered this the ideal education. However, there was a smaller upstart academy nearby started by another follower of Plato. Students of the Lyceum disagreed with the notion of forms being separate from the world, but instead insisted that forms are a part of the world itself, and that in order to reach enlightenment one must study it. This struck Phillip II as an ideal (and certainly more practical) method of thought. However, he is a wise ruler and does not make decisions at his whim. He takes the counsel of his court and instead decides to invite the teachers of the Academy to teach his son.

Alexander of Macedon is raised and taught with higher regard for the studying the self instead of the world, and chooses to maintain the status quo of his country, and make the lives of its citizens better. He foregoes conquering, and the world is never brought under his rule. The Hellenistic period never happens, and the ideals of Greece stagnate, eventually falling into shadow. Alexandria is never founded and never becomes the hotbed of science and technology (with Archimedes and his kin). Rome never adapts the Greek way of life. The world is completely, unalterably changed, because a potential ruler is raised with a different teacher and different ideals.
>was a practical man
4 u
File: 20130629.png (173 KB, 612x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
173 KB, 612x720
Thanks for answering my question. Are you reading anything currently? Where do you plan to progress philosophically or are you content with your current standing? Anything you are looking forward to reading?

Gonna get to sleep soon then go further down the rabbit hole
nope i like pure maths.

The greatest mathematicians were philosophers, ya fuckin' trog. There'd be neither without the other.
Make a thread on /lit/ tomorrow with a pic of someone like Kierkegaard and a question on his writing and we may talk tomorrow

Marcus Aurelius

All the philosophy I've read and probably all I ever will read. Guess I should check out the Greeks but its too much effort
File: 1444830159595.png (615 KB, 632x1756) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
615 KB, 632x1756
Memes are surpassing the boundaries of philosophy.
It's scary to imagine history might remember our memes, not to mention the post-post-ironic memes
kek'd heartly

I'm sure the life style is somewhere on the postpostpost irony scale
I'm pretty sure that r9k hivemind is a kind of philosophy in a way.
the whole "chad and stacey" outlook on life is similar to the whole late 19th century german view of society
Redpill theory is a thing and goes beyong guy crying on /r9k/

MGTOW is an offspin
Pretty much. The robot mentality is best captured by Schopenhauer though imo.

I consider myself fairly well versed in Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Plato and Aristotle.

I've read a lot of Nietzsche and like him, probably more than any other philosopher (Machiavelli is a close second and no, he is not nearly as edgy as Americans make him out to be), but it is hard to call myself well versed in him considering how much more obtuse he is.

I've read smatterings of Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Marx, le dick giver, and unfortunately, Rand.
Thanks for posting the comic
Any good philosophy channels on youtube I can watch and listen to?
Nietzsche isn't as dark as people make him out to be, he's a very life-affirming philosopher.

Of course he ended up going insane which is one of the best criticisms of him I've read. He was terrified of Nihilism but might have been devoured by it. He was attempting to uncover the foundations of humans values when he finally lost it, makes you wonder just what he found.
Nietzsche never had a breakdown senpai. He had an enlightenment. He took the poo-poo pee-pee pill. Why would you be a dark and brooding philosopher when you could just go mad, scream for tendies and have mommy and sister clean your poo poos?

His medical records from the asylum he spent time at are hilarious. One day he'd be lucid and reading his own works, the next day he'd be rolling around in the freshly fertilized gardens eating his own feces.

Nietzsche himself claimed that his 'breakdown' was a breakthrough in his last days of lucidity. After a few weeks of his transformation he stopped caring enough to tell normalscum what happened to him and just enjoyed the ride.

He didn't have syphilis either, that was a myth invented by Nazis. He visited a brothel once in his youth, but he was such a fucking sperg that instead of fucking hookers he sat down and played the piano while his friends were fucking loose German whores.

We lost a true robot in him, senpai.

>not posting the best version of that image
Check out "School of Life"
I love Nietzsche, reading Genealogy of Morals ATM.
>Stirner dove

File: sadmoot.png (311 KB, 514x433) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
311 KB, 514x433
I mean what's philosophy outside of science and mathematics anyways? Using big words to convince others of a simple political or social belief?

I mean look at communism, pages and pages of philosophy around it, yet it never worked, it was all bullshit in the end.
edgy n gay
>I mean what's philosophy outside of science and mathematics anyways

Philosophy is to elucidate thinking, that is all.
File: stirner.png (77 KB, 542x535) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
77 KB, 542x535
I read a ton of philosophy, reading spookyman's book right now
>mean look at communism, pages and pages of philosophy around it, yet it never worked
im not an expert at this kind of thing but MOST countries that have implemented communism were usually poor and/ or just came out of a revolution making an unstable economy. this combined with the fact that there would most likely be extremely high levels of corruption in the government means that it is doomed to fail. i would like to see a country with a strong economy and self sufficiency have a go at proper communism.
File: 1450561432681.png (70 KB, 1938x434) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
70 KB, 1938x434
Oh hey it's this thread again.
I do, if only because reading the well-formed arguments of others who read the well-formed arguments of others is a great way to come up with a justified and almost-logical way of directing my life (seeing as there can be no purely logical way to live life).
I dunno, I remember my intro to philosophy class and what was introduced as al-Farabi's view on the relationship between religion and philosophy made the most sense to me. From what I remember it was basically that religion can be cool and all but it's really only there to give some sort of guidance to the people too stupid for philosophy.
>What I know from philosophy is that there is no universal truth.
The "u cant kno muffin" meme is not the opinion of all philosophers or even all respected philosophers.
I think it's an interesting idea, but there's no way to really explore it. It's not like since the advent of modern science there have been societies that have disregarded it to focus on art because there's too much money to be made from science.
I do too senpai, but I don't think I really did until I started reading more about the philosophy of math and mathematical logic. I'm majoring in pure math and I always find it funny when the applied/stats people that have to take pure classes for graduation requirements complain about proofs.
>i would like to see a country with a strong economy and self sufficiency have a go at proper communism.
This would be interesting to see but it's pretty much never gonna happen. Aside from the fact that the word communism has been smeared beyond belief in the West, there's too much vested interest and power in the wealth that capitalism has provided for those people/groups to ever really let go.
>that image
>philosophy fan gets angry
>tries to apply same mockery onto other fields
>fails miserably
Cringe to be quite honest.
I'd say it only fails in making people angry. It's pretty true I'd say.
I think it's pretty accurate. The point of it is that you can take any broad field and use one small and often misinterpreted idea from that field to try to discredit the field but anyone who actually knows what the field is will think you're a retard.
File: phil.jpg (2 MB, 2800x2100) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2 MB, 2800x2100
do female existentialist writers exist?
(I'm male, though)

I only know Butler, but tbqh she's too deep into the leftist gay-hole to count

Stirner was radical and unpractical and thus lost in time.
His book was also written in a transition period, a time of the rising notion of big states, where concepts that have a fixed meaning now where just being developed (1850 Gemrany), I think that context makes it an odd piece too.
Marx famously wrote a critique of his book that was longer than the book itself.

I stumbled upon this video recently
It's the speakers interpretation which which I don't really agree with, but listening to a recording is maybe a more comfy into than reading

I'm (>>25817248) and this was not my take on it. I have a PhD in physics and most physicists are oblivious realists.
They do but keep in mind that most Continental philosophy comes from a time where female writers were ignored or not taken too seriously.
hegel is so cute
There are plenty of things that you can know.
File: Kierkegaard.jpg (49 KB, 310x459) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
49 KB, 310x459
I'm gay for young Kierkegaard and old Lenin
I think we all are friend, he was so lovely
faggot ass picture
File: wat.png (209 KB, 488x468) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
209 KB, 488x468
>tfw Schopenhauer wrote The World of Will and Representation at 24 or something
It matters why we believe what we believe, because the universe doesn't have a cheat sheet. Studied in the proper light, philosophy can be a way of learning what mistakes people have made in the past, and what mistakes people are prone to making. Take Plato's essentialism (the cave allegory): Plato was wrong, the universe isn't substance-dualist, but it's a powerful draw. Looking at all the time famous philosophers (like Kant and Hegel) wasted on the problem of categories without getting anywhere should suggest that categories/taxonomies are the wrong way of looking at the world, though that's a tough pill to swallow.

So I feel like that makes me a lot better as a researcher, if a lot slower. In particular, science is not the objective yardstick people think it is, because you have to start by asking the question, what motivates someone to carry out a particular experiment in a particular way? And then the next question is, what sorts of generalizations can be drawn from that experiment? Since generalization is not a situation where the proof is in the pudding, the philosophy of science is a serious problem that scientists generally don't understand (much less laypersons).

Because of all this, most of my work ends up being about "deconceptualization." Nearly every aspect of modern life has its roots in older philosophy, and the only way to understand anything about the world is to know the origin-philosophy, and the only way to make headway is to try and reel back the implicit commitments to yesterday's bad-but-enduring ideas.
let me use that buzzword for some memes though
prove that you can know nuthin then
File: cool_guard.png (50 KB, 202x235) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
50 KB, 202x235
What's your field?
Computer science, which is like a dumping-ground for harebrained theory. Hence why I brought up the problem of categories, which in CS is the problem of types/polymorphism.
A is A.
If A is A, you can know what A is.
This applies to everything.
but how can you know that?
The identity principle is self evident.
You cannot know that, you cannot even know you cannot know that
You can know that something you construct is what it is.
File: Liebe_Lenna.jpg (148 KB, 400x855) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
148 KB, 400x855
Ah, good, I'm a homotopy type theory shitposter on /sci/
you cannot even know that you can build constructs and you cannot even know you built it
You need certain premises to have a philosophical discourse.
One of those is that you are capable of thinking.
File: 1421826273543.jpg (140 KB, 837x673) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
140 KB, 837x673
>tfw continental philosophy postgrad
>tfw it is literally not possible to be more patrician than me
File: display.jpg (17 KB, 261x372) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
17 KB, 261x372
I've read some. I like the Stoics, I've read some Plato, there is some Buddhist literature I'm currently reading, I have some Aristotle that I've yet to read, I've read Marx (lol edgy), and due to my lol edgy interest in Paganism I've also read some late Roman stuff like Sallustius, Augustine, Emperor Julian's Hymn to Helios and stuff to try to understand the debate between pagans and Christians in the late empire and the decline of paganism.

I enjoy it.
Julian's neopaganism is an attempt to take the transcendental yearning underlying late-Hellenistic mystery religions/philosophies and blend them together in a way that preserves the old cultural religiosity of classical antiquity

He's trying to make a philosophically grounded mystery religion from pagan imagery that can compete with Christianity's monopoly on satisfying that transcendental urge
File: cant.jpg (18 KB, 320x320) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
18 KB, 320x320
>he still doesn't get philosophy

It's no necessarily supposed to be this big worldview, it's just how you look at reality and has a profound impact on the way people live their lives.

Come on niggas, think for yourselves and not with these edgy opinions because they seem pretentious and use "big words"
I have devoted myself to philosophy.

Basically, the practice of philosophy (as I see it) rests in reflection upon principles... this reflection can be undertaken privately, as in deep thought, or verbally, as in lively conversation.

I think that philosophy is important for many reasons, but here are a few easy ones.

Philosophy makes life huge. Like, of course we can gain a richer experience in life from the wisdom that philosophy provides, but over time philosophy starts to magnify things in exciting ways and scary ways. You'll know that you've spotted a philosopher when they seem to be profoundly affected by simple kind gestures and seriously perplexed by strange, rude, or crude remarks.

It's important for the spirit of philosophy to stay strong in a culture not just for the sake of a collective inquisitive mindset, like in the golden age of Athens, but for the sake of an overarching mutual understanding. Like, the smartest, most gifted people are scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and artists, and these people always have/always will make discoveries and progress their fields, but without the spirit of philosophy in a culture, these people will always be outcasts-- smart people often forget that not everybody is as smart as they are, and that even the simplest things often need to be spelled out for the sake of a mutual understanding. The spirit of philosophy is a kind of glue that holds groups of minds together. It allows us to see the value in other people's work and to make the connections necessary for us to grow as humans.

Philosophy is also key to the creation of legends. The legendary spirit of a time usually reflects itself in the philosophy of that time. For example, Descartes is legendary because he saw through previously dogmatic paradigms when he took nothing for granted-- not the existence of God, not the existence of knowledge, not even his own existence. Anyway, philosophy in its most legendary or basic form is very important.
I uh tried using Idris for a while, but there's too much of a paradigm gap. I'm not familiar with that approach to proof-specification, and there's no documentation. But the other question in CS I'm interested in is how one should handle state: ignoring languages that don't think there's a state problem in programming, the Haskell/Idris/&c. solution is to have two languages in one, a safe pure functional language, and an unsafe impure imperative language. It helps that it makes you tag your unsafe code, but monadic code has no real safety in itself.

Anyway, I'm looking at how one might construct a non-category approach to types.

Also, nice image. I've only ever seen the crop.

You can't build an abstraction and then wonder whether you've built an abstraction. The better question for things like an identity function is what the relevance is. Per the above paragraphs, identity functions are important to functional programming, and anyway, computers seem to be the place that logic comes home to roost.

The thing most solipsists/nihilists/whateverists miss is that solipsism is a positive proposition: you're saying that your perceptions are a complete fiction. The actual "starting point" of "reason" is the perception of phenomena, and it's not epistemically neutral to claim otherwise.
Book rec?
What stances/groundings do you guy identify yourself with?

I feel like you're more interested in the history of philosophy and it's societal context, and not as much in philosophy itself, which there's nothing wrong with. A lot of people fail to make the distinction.
File: its your choice.png (641 KB, 774x2270) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
its your choice.png
641 KB, 774x2270
>Also, nice image. I've only ever seen the crop.
I thought so.

>non-category approach to types.
What do you mean. If you read the 2007 history paper "A History of Haskell: Being Lazy with Class" by the Haskell makers (read it in any case, it's good!), you see they didn't give a shit about math in this sense. They didn't even know it, I assume.
A language with faithful semantics in a category is an extremely strong argument for me. I'm not a CS guy, though, I'm a physicist. Actually I want a dependently typed language for expressing physics in it, but the CS people care about these abstroose stuff and shit will never get done. It's a wonder that the Haskell community is as big as it is.

it's the understanding of What is

so you get a bunch of philosophers who are partly right and partly wrong and etc

i recommend Julius Evola if you`re not a dumb faggot
They're alive right now.
File: 12.jpg (117 KB, 500x652) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
117 KB, 500x652
Oh no that was my first post in this thread. I'm just wondering where someone who's done the specific reading you have lies within the context of phenomenological understanding.

what does "upwards" mean? specifically having control over your life?
>i recommend julius evola if you're an internet troll looking for thread fodder

I'll read that later, thanks. By "category" I mean the topic from philosophy that became the mathematical study of category theory. The notion that there's a hierarchy of essences that make up the world, that the world is classifiable. The philosophical/metaphysical study was largely concerned with figuring out the "correct" categorization of the world, which really goes all the way back to Aristotle.

Have you looked at Idris? It's a bit rough around the edges, but it's a more-or-less-working Haskell-like dependently-typed language, with a focus on programs-as-proofs.

The problem with the semantics of categories is that we can't see the future; whatever categories we come up with are definitely wrong, because the world isn't actually made up of categories and more considerations will always occur to us later. As an engineer with theoretical leanings, I think the "best" type system would be the one that's easiest to refactor, so the practical problem with categories is that they're hard to refactor because of their (so to speak) universal quantification.

My idea is to make a language containing monomorphic functions and mechanisms for posing (implicit) one-to-one and directed transformations between types. It gets at the same idea, that we want to pose semantic similarities between types, but it would build those similarities in an ad hoc rather than a structural way, without totally abandoning semantics (as happens in dynamic typing).
File: Cnoidal_wave.jpg (122 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
122 KB, 1024x768
sorry for deleting, wanted to correct "epistemology" to "ontology".

Well I got my PhD now and realize that you don't feel awesome in the sciences if you're not at the top, and the people at the top are not happy either and there is even a pheonomenon that people who do something big feel depressed just more (you have lots of opponents and it's also like writing Harry Potter, knowing you can't ever outdo yourself in your life again). And then in the last year's I've started making up for not fucking around and got my Chad side up, fucking a lot of chicks now and it doesn't lead anywhere either.
So what I mean is that what I see it making me feel good is improving itself and so I try to do lots (like working out, read into other fields (like from physics to math to computer science)) and the reading I do is to adjust the goal as I go along.
Philsophically, I gained new perspectives so often that I doubt there is a good one and so when you do something for others you don't know (if you engage politically), you'll probably fuck up more than you help or it's meaningless. That's why I read the individualists also. Where I can make other people happy is when I engage in projects that also benefit me - but for this I also need to be able to do more work (not sit on 4chan 3 hours a day, for example). This is what I mean with self-control

(If you're (>>25814109) responding to (>>25813739), then you asked me this before and I've outlined the main guidelines I feel valuable. If I'd read more, it would necessarily expand.
I try to enjoy a journey that's hopefully upwards. I'm still searching for a way of controlling myself and actually do more - that's the sort of philosophy text I look out for atm
My views on the ontology of math and physical realism are much edgier)

I read Kant (I'm also >>25812235)

An awesome read on the history of algebra (Galois to Grotho) is


File: QFT_for_you.jpg (161 KB, 634x264) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
161 KB, 634x264
I only code physicists and engineering languages in my job, sadly (e.g. MatLab) and so I can know Idris only passively and Haskell from doing very small projects of Writing Wikipedia articles/coding examples there


In any case, the type theory people are right in incorporating all of (higher-order) logic into the constructive world and then you get Martin-Lof type theory and I think then then groupoids, topoi, categories, are simple natural and simply there.

>The problem with the semantics of categories is that we can't see the future; whatever categories we come up with are definitely wrong, because the world isn't actually made up of categories and more considerations will always occur to us later.

You're taking the idea of category theory being a formalization of some real world classification too far.
It's a working tool and topoi are good objects.

Regarding your proposal, I'm much more on the user side (even if I'm pondering about doing my own language, or at least own syntax which I'd parse to something like Idris code). I'll have to take whatever the big guys (pic partly related) come up with...
So you're a bit of a utilitarian that sees value in lots of "good" in a large amount of people? I think that's kindof a tough way to live, it puts a large imaginary responsibility on your shoulders. At least that's what I interpret from what you're saying, you seem to think that there's an inherent value in helping others, and also that you see inherent value in competitive achievements. Which is fine, that's largely how society has functioned in general for thousands of years. I'm just surprised you wouldn't take more of a non-cognitivist route from the reading you've done, but if you're specifically searching for some kind of "purpose" then that's the opposite of what you'd want to do.

I feel like having a neutral, non-cognitivist perspective on life would help you not feel so pressured and depressed. Not trying to rip on you, trying to help out. There is literally no reason to care about strangers past it maybe making you feel good or something like that.

Also, not entirely relevantly but I disagree with your statement on "writing Harry Potter". Rowling gained a lot of power through writing that book in the form of cash, I can think of a few accomplishments that would be seen as superior by general society that could be done with a fraction of the amount of money she acquired. It really just comes down to a lack of imagination or desire to accomplish anything further.
Ah sorry, in programming "refactor" means, I guess, redesign. Looking back I can see how that was a bad word choice.

>You're taking the idea of category theory being a formalization of some real world classification too far.
Yes and no, or maybe, that's the problem I'm trying to solve. There's an odd issue, and this is a philosophy thread after all, about the relationship between experience, phenomena, and abstraction---that there is no "pure abstractum." Numbers only make sense to us because of our experience with quanta, and sets only make sense to us because of our experience with groups of things. Or put another way, it's always an abstraction of something. One of the great scientific conceits is confusing the phenomenon with the abstractum.

The notion of types comes from our experiences of categories/taxonomies, and it's hard to make them escape that metaphor. I mean, yes, I'm obviously aware that one can pose abstract notions of categories that are manipulated in ways that showed up in one of your earlier images. But any model-building exercise will always have an anthropic flair because logic and math don't "do themselves," and the practical application of type theory can't escape the perils of real-world classification.

This is all a lot of words to say that, over time, large statically-typed programs devolve into taxonomy hell, because the relationships between values are specified in taxonomic terms. I'm sure you've caught a glimpse of that in MatLab, but it's infinitely worse in things like, say, Dotnet.
File: WhatsApp.jpg (62 KB, 640x426) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
62 KB, 640x426
I don't want to call myself a utalitarian - then I'd think I get used. I see "good" in people in that I know there is wasted capacity. I have shy friends and if they fix my electronic stuff we both gain stuff out of it, I'd argue. And I pay them back too.

>responsibility on your shoulders
Why? I push my projects.
People want to be lead, you can use that. And working stuff out makes you learn interesting stuff.
The value in helping others is to make them and then often in turn yourself happy.
As I said, I enjoy "improving" and for this strange word you need to identify some direction and this is defined by some purpose. That's the Kierkegaard aspect.

I don't quite see the negative side you want to emphasise, please elaborate!

>lack of imagination (Harry Potter)
It's already hard to do it once. Why believe you can do it twice?

If you're interested, here's a documentary about a now famous mathematican who did big stuff (good view) and at one point (I think they start with it) he starts crying because of this sentiment


Semi-related, just chatting with a 11 year younger blonde tinder baby who wants the D and when she says it's impolite to ask for dick size I go all Stirner on her and make a point why she should drop that spooky attitude (I literally said "spook", let's see if autism gets me laid)

The founder of Category Theory has a book of his views of "What is Mathematics". Funny enough, just today I read an essay by him where he (among other things) disses mathematical Platonism and such - I liked that paper (even if I don't agree fully with his outlook)


>taxonomy hell
can't you do stuff that leaves the features prone do danger all optional
>can't you do stuff that leaves the features prone do danger all optional
Taxonomy hell in programming originates from polymorphism, which is having a function that's flexible about the types of its arguments. I'm aware of three broad ways of going about this:

In object-oriented programming, you specify an explicit taxonomy, and any type can be subbed out for any of its subtypes. So OO is focused on "is-a" relationships between types, as in, "a cat is an animal." Then if a function expects an animal, you can also give it a cat. This is incredibly degenerate but also far and away the most popular.

In dynamic or "duck-typed" programming, you can use any type in any place as long as it has the right properties. As in, "if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, that's close enough for Python." Dynamically-typed code is hell to debug, and you also lose out on the semantics that a type system gives you. That is, y'know, if cat is-an animal and dog is-an animal, you've explicitly specified that there's a semantic linkage between cats and dogs. If two things can quack, that doesn't really tell you anything more about them, and it could just be a fluke of how things are named. For those who care, this includes C++ templates.

In typeclass systems, you have sets of types that imply some semantic/functional overlap between them, and you admit types into the various sets on a per-type, per-set basis. So a "number" is something that defines +, -, *, abs, and that can be made from an integer literal (i.e., the string "1" appearing in code). Or if one feels like being algebraic about it, an "additive set" is anything with + and zero. This is better, but still quirky, and the quirks are subtler.

Anyway, you can totally forego taxonomy hell if you're willing to forego polymorphism, but that's unsustainable for its own reasons: if each function can only take one type per argument, then you have to copy-paste code a lot, and that's impossible to tweak.

God, I literally hope you get malaria or something, you macedonian fuck.
I read the essay you linked (I'm also working, writing JavaScript), and it's odd that he disses Platonism when he's clearly a Platonist himself. I mean it's nearly impossible to be a mathematician without also being a Platonist, but it's awfully on-the-nose in that paper.
File: poly.png (96 KB, 588x399) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
96 KB, 588x399
Not sure if that's true.
For one, if anything, he sees the reality of math in the application.
A Platonist would see the set of nats be real in some realm, but I'd say many of the CS guys and also the category people post Lawyere see the reality not in the numbers but in the counting.
I mean

I'm also philosophically inclined to a perspective where I give reality to procedures - cooking recipes, wage slave instructions or all the things computer programs have semantics in.
(The constructive part of logic is isomorphic to the basic typed lambda calculus via Curry-Howard and so this automatically makes logic, at least, something real in the sense that it's a programming language.)

What he clearly wants to disregard is the platonic ontology of material set theories like ZFC.

Btw. the paper by Thurston that he mentions (I read it years ago) is also good. There he describes his work life including the heights of it and the sociopolitical influence of mathematics as a things people do on the stuff that's discovered or cooked up.
Yes I know I do this reading as a hobby I don't buy the sparknotes to get the key concepts like a philosophy major
I'm inclined to a Husserl-type position, where things like numbers are an interaction between us and the outside world. So that's similar to the notion that "numbers are in the counting," but where that essay at least falls off the wagon is in its view of generalization. If numbers do implicate us, you have to carry that all the way and recognize that the sense in which a particular mathematical theorem corresponds to a phenomenon includes the interpretation of the theorem, the phenomenon, and what one means by "corresponds." In other words, all reasoning is motivated, if someone says "I'm going to sit down and do logic" they're deceiving themselves (I'm looking at you Descartes), and that's tricky to disentangle from mathematical proofs or mathematical physics. I think a large part of why physics "works" is that we want it to work, and reality isn't excessively opposed to that---unlike in the complex sciences (aka "social" or "soft" sciences), where reality works against our addiction to ceteris paribus.

The manner in which the essay at least comes across as Platonic is that, mainstream ways of talking about "what's going on with math" requires that math be "embedded" in the universe, that we "discover" rather than "invent" math. The author comes across to me as taking a position more like this one than like Husserl's lifeworld.
Thread replies: 120
Thread images: 48
Thread DB ID: 428395

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at wtabusse@gmail.com with the post's information.