>The unexamined life is not worth living.
Why don't you robots pick up philosophy to find reason and truth?
It's not about being pretentious, or reading philosophy. It is just reason, introspection and testing your notions/thoughts/opinions.
Most of you have a lot of time on your hands. Why spend it in self pity and misery, hedonistic comfort or plain bitterness because of you desire and ego? Do you really believe that's the way to spend life, your life?
Because life is meaningless. Introspection and philosophy won't change that
>Introspection and philosophy won't change that
If you tried thinking about it you might find yourself believing otherwise.
>because there is no truth in philosophy
Philosophy is a tool you can use to come to a sensible conclusion and truth, it's to structure your views and examine ones beliefs which could be wrong. Philosophy is not about an absolute truth, rather an applicable truth through reason.
After reading a lot of philosophy and trying lots of different things and thinking deeply, yes. Hedonism is the correct way to live. I'm just going to play video games, get drunk, eat tacos, and jerk off. It makes me happier than anything else.
You do understand that pretty much all STEMfag fields originated in philosophy, right?
Atomic theory was developed by a philosopher 2,000 years before science discovered it. There is still a place for theoretical thought.
Nietzsche was probably the last philosopher who actually brought anything legitimately new to the field unfortunately. Today's pop philosophers, Chomsky, Zizek, Singer, et. al. are mostly marxist retards. Zizek is very amusing and offers some cuttingly intelligent criticism as well as occasional insights, but his refusal to divorce himself from the socialist experiment always lingers in the back of my mind when I listen to him speaking.
Nietzsche though, Nietzsche should be fundamental reading for a robot.
>raised by a single mother
>cucked by the only woman he ever loved
>failure in academia, people laugh his early works out of the field, nobody pays attention to him
>slowly loses his few friends and drives away everyone close to him
>eventually so ill that he quits his job and is given neetbux
>spends his NEET years writing some of the most sublime, lyrical philosophy of the past thousand years
>eventually goes insane, full poopoopeepee mode smearing his feces on things and eating it in an asylum
>doesn't get any recognition until he's on his deathbed
His work on the overman and the last man are of particular importance to the Robot philosophy.
I read a lot of greek philosophy. Neo-stoic and absurdest interest me as well. Pic related is something I wish I had on audio tape as a kid
The answer to life but tacos cmon anon you mean tendies right
I bet you never heard of Montaigne. He'd add quite a lot to you 'knowledge'.
I'm afraid you didn't "learn" anything, anon.
>find reason and truth
There is arguably nothing to find
The death of Truth hasn't been a sweet pill to swallow. The only way I see breaking out is absurdism or enhancing our own intelligence many times
No objective, abstract truths exist because universally-encompassing statements are just linguistic characterizations with no grounding in concrete reality
Believing in objective TRUTHS was just confusing the properties of language with the those of the external world
>reason and truth
The world is fundamentally unreasonable. Truth is an abstraction that can never be given a single objective meaning. Just accept that the world is a thoroughly unreasonable place, which is filled more with tragic-comedy than it is adventure. If life were a play, it'd be less Oedpius Rex and more Waiting for Godot.
That said, fuck hedonism. A life spent on not doing isn't life at all.
What do you search for then?
I read philosophy same way as prose, for style and structure
I don't search for vacuous abstract values, I pursue interests and novelties because they're enjoyable
Not everything is teleological
I think it's fair to add Schopenhauer to a robot's reading.
He was misogynistic and a loner, but had a fair bit to say about love and happiness.
He's not on a Robot's reading list per se, but the best philosopher I've read is Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception. He's the king of BTFOing STEMfags, but only if their minds are open to more than their own fields.
Also he was a manlet. Quit funny, he wasn't bad looking in his early years, was rich, intelligent, but never managed to get his qt gf.
To be a hedonist, your life must revolve around fulfilling your body's desires. Perhaps our bodies do not always know what is best for us.
Overindulgence taints your character, it shows you lack restraint, thus weak will. But by asceticism, there is virtue. It doesn't seem to me that the most pleasure can be obtained through intemperance. You need a contrast to a pleasure for it to remain pleasurable, even be that moderation.
>trying to bring light to the most anti-philosophic [yet still philosophic Zizek sniff sniff etc] board
>""people""" whose entire weltanschauung depends on being in the dark, and which falls apart at first inspection
laughable. i can hear the defense mechanisms being t-t-triggered
Keep avoiding your psychologist, robots.
I work in a few areas. I like to call what I do philosophy of action, but depending who you ask it could be classified moral philosophy, philosophy of mind, moral psychology and even epistemology.
>YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE COOL
>GUYS LISTEN I HAVE A COOL IDEA
being meta is a meme, live in the moment
philosophy is shit, just be a fuckin animal
That's like asking whether fiction or nonfiction is better
Good prose takes a lot of technical skill, but so does making a fun argument. Some days I'd rather read greentext than Nabokov and vice versa. Different styles have different appeals
btw most of 4chan has no idea about the state of contemporary western philosophy. continentals are mostly ridiculed, no one reads nietzsche let alon fucking zizek unless they are studying them in their quarantined sub-field of 'continental' (im being glib but you get the point)
>live in the moment
>just be a fuckin animal
Ethics is the most important philosophy.
Epistemology is alright.
Theology and Metaphysics is usually some psycho-babble or Christian apologist shit.
What explanation would you like. I am not really in the Davidson school. By philsophy of action I intend to pick out something similar to what G E Moore calls 'philosophy of psychology' in Modern Moral Philosophy - namely something that will fill the gap between current moral theory and concepts of agency, authenticiy, autonomy etc.
The idea of the discipline being so divided is pretty outdated. Nowadays it is all the rage to publish things which are cross-disciplianry (epistemology & ethics hybrids for example as in Fricker's Epistemic Injustice)
>as much Plato as you can stand, he's better to come back to later
>Aristote [-lean Ethics] Organon is a no; rhetoric, poetics, politics if you like. Physics is more of a history of philosophy piece by now, but someone'll come out to greentext at me on that.
>Sextus Empiricus, pyrrhonian skepticism
>Aurelius [people read this first. they are retarded. the aphorisms in meditations are reminders, not lessons]
This is the basis for an ethical Start with the Greeks, which is really what to concern yourself with if you're doing philosophy for self-improvement. Double >> for useful contextual information, not required.
Buy Hackett versions, Oxford if no Hackett. Cambridge or Colombia if you have the dime.
I'm just telling you how it is. Not making a value judgement, jsut pointing out how out of touch 4chan is with actual philosophy. Almost nothing on /lit/'s list would be studied seriously in a modern philosophy seminar. And for the record, the hardcore continental school barely exists anymore. It's essentially been subsumed by literary criticism etc. So that divide is really hard to make these days.
Philosophy is hardly useful once you realize that behavioral and evolutionary psychology describe human life much better.
That being said, I've always been a fan of Kierkegaard. Much of his stuff is schizotypal ramblings that will never make sense to anyone but himself, but he's got a lot of great stuff like the aphorisms in the diapsalmata and the diary of the seducer.
>> Fell madly in love with a stupid bitch and obsessed over her for two years
>> She agrees to marry him "out of pity"
>> Filled with rage that she sees him as beneath her
>> Cuts her out of his life
>> Regina Olsen goes nuts threatens to kill herself if he doesn't take her back
>> Realizes he lost interest in her and would rather spend his days writing
>> Regina spends the rest of her life reading his writings aloud to her cuck husband
All in all pretty based guy
>narrow field of interest
>the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence
>fundamental nature of existence
But if you did happen to engage in philosophy when you come out with statements like those, would it be a bad thing? You can't escape philosophy. Even coming out against philosophy is philosophy.
I would go in chronological order as much as possible Hume responds to Descartes and Kant responds to Hume responding on Descartes. They are built on the shoulders of giants or so they say something of that sort
>analytics call continentals obscure writers when this man exists
You're doing it again.
>You can't escape philosophy. Even coming out against philosophy is philosophy.
This is laughable. It's the equivalent of you asking me to play football, me declining, and you saying "well leaving the game is part of the game, so you played anyways! ha!"
This is a good example of not understanding modern philosophy.
>Philosophy is hardly useful once you realize that behavioral and evolutionary psychology describe human life much better.
Philosophy isn't normally concerned with describing human life (with some exceptions, e.g Gricean pragmatics). However, it is concerned with things like justification (e.g what counts as an evolutionary 'reason'), and validity of different scientific projects. If you read anything by Fodor or Churchland or almsot any modern philosopher that would be obvious.
You are ignorant as to what role philosophy has in the modern world.
>It's the equivalent of you asking me to play football, me declining, and you saying "well leaving the game is part of the game, so you played anyways! ha!"
No, not really. Philosophy, unlike football, is a game you can't leave. I don't have to ask you to play, and you don't have the option to decline, stop, or leave.
Running circles around u senpai btw mercy rule soon.
No shit this is a weeb interest board not a fucking colloquium
Did you expect to find cutting-edge academics here
Do you expect /tv/ to showcase the cutting edge of avante-garde art films
Do you kick kids and call them names for reading Eric Carl books because they're a decade old
>No, not really. Philosophy, unlike football, is a game you can't leave.
Says who? Philosophers? Lmao.
Psychology and evolutionary biology can't tell me whether or not it's morally right or ethical to kill a person in order to save two lives. It can only describe the reasons why I would possibly do it, not whether I should do it.
Many things. It is a broad subject. However, I was reading an article today on what would constitute a good reason for abandoning a research project. Yesterday I was reading about different justifications for when one might think discrimination is necessarily wrongful in the law. Or about the feasibility of the mass modularity thesis and the implications that it would have for cognitive penetration and hence epistemic justifcation by appeal to observation.
I apologise for trying to engage with people here as if they weren't all retarded 15 year olds.
Yes, I admit, like all subjects, philosophy requires an amount of expertise to understand and engage with. I have a similar problem with biochemistry - I can't make heads or tails of the papers, so I don't waste my time with it.
>However, I was reading an article today on what would constitute a good reason for abandoning a research project.
Alright, and what process do you use to come to a conclusion? What algorithm do you use to generate "good" reasons?
> post Kierkegaard
> think I'm talking about modern philosophy
Existential philosophy is solely concerned with describing the subjective experience of human life
Modern philosophy is pants on head retarded mental gymnastics that contributes literally nothing. If you want objective truth, the scientific method is really all you need.
>If you want objective truth, the scientific method is really all you need.
Yes, this is so. But what is to say that I, or anybody, wants objective truth? I can choose to want something else.
I studied Kierkegaard for 2 years
You're a retard
Clearly you missed the point of Fear and Trembling if you don't get the Regina thing
Kierkegaard never rambled, his only "incomprehensible" works are those where he toes the line of irony so closely that academics have no idea whether the fuck he was being serious or not
Look up arguments about Concept of Anxiety
>Implying you have free will and your thoughts themselves aren't programmed by the chemicals in your brain
From my position all that is relevant is your behavior and how that can be predicted.
Haven't tried it but here is this. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
Just got done reading Plato so I'm gonna go Aristotle then Aquinas and Descartes
OK so it has become clear that you are just some person with a chip on their shoulder about STEM subjects. Of course there is no algorithm to do such a thing. In fact, such an algorithim would be theoretically impossible, as what is in question is the jsutifiability and soundness of the axioms upon which scientific theories rest.
If you think that the scientific method is unrelated to philsophy, both now and in the past, you are completely retarded
I'll give one example - if you look at ongoing research in cognitive science, particulary predictive processing models, you will see a lot of new work is interdisciplinary between philosophy and neuroscience. This is because philsophy is extremely helpful for breaking down the underlying arguments presupposed by current theories of cognitiion, and also provide a way of connecting neuroscientific findings with interessting implciations.
As another anon pointed out earlier, this is 4chan and so I can't be bothered to post a more thoughtful and thorough rely at this time. Let me conclude by saying that I understand your frustration with philsophy, but I think your belief that it is a usesless subject is simply due to the fact that you are unaware of the importatn roles it plays in many other fields at a conceptual level.
Which is not to say it is somehow a perfect subject,certainly there are bad parts of philosophy (as there are bad parts of the sciences). But to think it is useless is incredibly naive and shows a thorough lack of awareness about the progress of science in the contemporary world
If you want to understand what really happened with Regina you have to read his diary which is the only place he speaks plainly about the situation.
Don't get me wrong, the guy was clearly a genius but certain passages are totally nonsensical. He goes on for about 50 pages near the beginning of Either/Or ranking different modes of art ie. poetry, music, etc. according to criteria that while well thought out and consistent is complete gibberish.
Kierkegaard is one of the few philosophers I think who had real knowledge and insight to share. his temporal / eternal divide is a theme that comes up often in philosophy (yet not explicitly and under different names)
>programmed by chemicals
The problem with casuality is that you're forced to prove whether it was the chemicals that caused the action instead of the chemicals being a byproduct of an action.
And it would be hard to predict accurately particular person's patterns without doing a case study prior.
demonstrable truth isn't objective truth
science can never resolve conflicts of value, conflicts of value generally boil down to preferences that can't reasonably be compared by any shared standard measurement, rendering any credible scientific assessment or conclusion impossible
saying that "science points toward a particular set of values" has the same meaning as "nature operates by these principles so we should as well"
it's a useless linguistic circlejerk that falls back on the same meaningless assumptions and vacuous language as any other mode of expression
nature isn't the arbitrator of values given we now have the power to extensively modify our own environments
If you cut into someone's head there is nothing there but atoms so what else could cause behavior and thoughts?
The only other alternative is a supernatural soul which requires a leap of religious faith to believe in.
>OK so it has become clear that you are just some person with a chip on their shoulder about STEM subjects
Nice strawman, I'm a college dropout. inb4 ad-homs
>Of course there is no algorithm to do such a thing.
So how do you solve the problem? If philosophy is useful, it should be able to accomplish things definitively, not just talk about them.
>If you think that the scientific method is unrelated to philsophy, both now and in the past, you are completely retarded
Not the guy you're responding to here, but I'm with him. The scientific method is a dressed-up version of trial and error that philosophers constantly try to absorb into their library of fiction to prove that they're capable of doing something useful.
Certain philosophical works can still be enjoyed by the layman, but as someone that would like to be fully aware of the current state of the discipline, it isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
>> science can never resolve conflicts of value
I agree with you. It can however tell you entirely what people do value. Much of a person's political leanings for example can be predicted by personality. Dark triads value equality of opportunity and therefore lean conservative. Empaths value equality of outcome and lean liberal.
As to what you should value is a question that only exists within your subjective conscious experience.
Just a short follow up. I imagine that when you guys think of philosophy you have in mind questions like 'what is truth' or 'what is a good life'. While these questions undoubtedly persist, there are also parts of philosophy that deal with less metaphysical concerns.
For example, trying to understand how we apply the concept of blame and praise to better make sense of when we should reward/punish people.
The field of metaphilosophy (what role philosophy has) is itself huge and contentious - Wittgenstein famously said the aim of philosophy was 'To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle' - he meant that philsoophy was purely therapeutic, it was just a way of making sense of words that humans had become confused about. At very least, then, philsoophy is useful in a philological sense, in that it helps people to communicate better (by clarifying what is meant by different things, such as 'reasons', or 'facts')
>So how do you solve the problem? If philosophy is useful, it should be able to accomplish things definitively, not just talk about them.
It does attempt to solve the problem - with complicated philosophical arguments. No doubt these will be unsatisfying to you because they are disagreed upon. However, I remind you that science is in no better a position. How does one reconcile gravity with quantum mechanincs? Tell me how physics can reconcile them.
Your understanding of science is jejune and misguided. Scientific progress contains in it elements of philsoophy.
If you are genuinely interested in the connection to philsophy and science, may I suggest reading Kuhn on scientific revolutions.
Science can solve any problem that has a goal. The problems you're calling unsolvable are just goal-less and incomplete. To use an example from earlier in the thread:
>is it justifiable to kill one man in order to save two?
This doesn't matter until you put it in a real situation with real goals. Once you do that, it can be solved by science easily. It would look something like this:
>Which would bring me the least amount of emotional distress? Letting two men die or killing one man to save them?
>Which would result in less time spent in prison?
>Which would benefit my social status the most?
Tl;dr define your shit clearly and science can handle it. Leave it undefined and it's all meaningless wank.
Did you miss the part where I said I spent 2 years studying him
I've soiled original copies of his books with my filthy little fingers
Either/Or was written under a pseudonym, which half the time meant ironic parody of people he didn't like (for example, Either/Or)
He wasn't trying to fit his works into one broad systematic rational system and he consciously wrote contradictory remarks into different book, even some of the ones penned under his own name
Generally if he doesn't make sense it's because he's being the turn of the century's most next level troll
>No doubt these will be unsatisfying to you because they are disagreed upon. However, I remind you that science is in no better a position. How does one reconcile gravity with quantum mechanincs?
Reminder: the other person being wrong doesn't automatically make you right.
As to science and philosophy being "in the same position", the difference here is that science is useful and has accomplished things. Philosophy has only talked about things. I couldn't care less if either is "true" in a formal sense (because knowledge of truth is impossible), I only care about what works.
By the way, even a quick google will show the importance of philosophy both in the history of science and in contemporary science. See Ernst Mach, who was hugely influential in the discovery of special relativity. There are myriad examples of this.Today look at the work Andy Clark and Jakob Hohwy are doing on bayesian models of the brain.
I'm done with this argument now, you can go on believing that philosophy has no role in the modern world or you can humbly choose to learn something that you didn't before today. I'm guessing however you will continue to think of science as some sort of infallible process with clearly defined rules in how it progresses (what was the term you used? algorithms). This lack of understanding will ensure you will never have a thorough grasp on cutting edge science. The choice is yours.
So by that reasoning you think it is meaningless as to which reason should be picked. But the intuition is that one requires a *justificaton* for picking a particular goal. Most people don't think justifications are meaningless wank
Alright, if you think justification is important, define "justifiable" and we'll go from there based on your definition. Once things are defined clearly I'm sure they'll be able to be handled scientifically.
What a strange argument to make. 'Philosophy' has in its history 'accomplished' far more than modern science.
Nowadays its role is more nuanced (and controversial) but to say it has accomplished nothing is to reveal a remarkably ignorant understanding of the history of human civilization. There is a reason that Aristotle wrote a book called 'Physics',
If all you care about is what works, you should thank philosophy not only for the ancient study of 'natural philosophy', but also for the modern school of pragmatics in which your reasoning is based (even if you are unaware that it is)
Well exactly, the definition of justifiable is exactly what many philsophers attempt to give. It's a very hard thing to do. After all I presumably have to give a *good* definition, one that requires arguments etc. All you are doing is highlighting the extremetly important project philsophy has that science, a priori, cannot handle.
I am not understanding the part we don't agree on. I am aware of his fondness for irony. I am just saying certain passages are clearly the result of schizotypal tendencies. Undoubtedly he didnt seriously believe stuff like that art rating I talked about. The way he describes his mind as so inwardly focused he was unable to quit writing huge passages in his head is textbook schizotypal thought patterns.
I assure you we agree much more than you think.
>All you are doing is highlighting the extremetly important project philsophy has that science, a priori, cannot handle.
Do you have evidence that philsophy can handle it either? I'm still waiting on your definition, by the way. It doesn't have to be particularly good, just something to work with.
And as for Regina
Diary of the seducer makes it clear that Regina ceased to be an erotic source for him. A part of him did want to marry her - the whole distinction between the aesthetic life and ethical life and whatnot - but he felt he couldn't live the married life and still live up to his calling as a philosopher.
Word of advice: limit yourself playing chess with pidgeons
That or just don't take the bait
I can understand it every now and then though, but when you do fall for it make it short and concise then be on your way
science has extraordinary descriptive capabilities
no shit the question was easy, you handed it to yourself
pull the ruler out of your ass and resolve all of these questions:
1. which is the superior medium, the visual arts or music?
2. who is the most beautiful woman ever to have lived?
3. (semi-stolen from sartre even though he's a semi-hack) there's a war against an oppressive regime going on. you have the option to join the army as a captain or take care of your family. what do you do?
though, making up a standard of measurement because you need one doesn't make it legitimate or accurate, and having an intended goal is already a form of bias that frames the situation within a particular, inseparable context
please try tho
>but also for the modern school of pragmatics in which your reasoning is based
Hahaha, are you serious? "Do what works" has to be credited to pragmatism? Do philosophers govern all human thought? Without these old men with important names, would we even be self-aware?
You're being silly.
that was murdered for being a 70 year old NEET who walked out on his family, all he would do all do is drink and mooch off people while annoyingly pester everyone with a million "why?" questions like a 5 year old
where should I start bros
I am so fucking depressed and in search of truth, help
I can respect that
Has anyone actually noticed an effect with the robot? Are there any hardcore NEETs out there who have observed any difference with any data?
No, some people think that philosophy can't handle it. However, the argument stating such is also philosophical (as I'm sure you can see, one needs to then question what constitutes evidence etc)
Here's a popular definition of justifiably for actions - you are justified in doing things that don't harm anyone else.
Now is this a good principle? Some people think so, some people don't. Just because its not unanimous, or doesnt have any way of verifying, deosnt mean its not meaningful
I know, sometimes I don't know when I'm being trolled. I think I'm getting too old for this site.
'Do what works' can be said about philsophy. Do what works - do what everyone agrees on. But what happens when there is disagreement? What happens when things stop working? How does one adjudicate between two people who have very different ideas of what 'is working'? How does one say that one person's project 'works' more than somoene elses operating in a whole different paradigm?
I'm done. You can continue to beleive that philosophy has no impact on science, and that science is in no way philosophical. It is a pity if you continue to beleive somehtign so fundamentally flawed, but I have already posted many examples and I'm tired now.
I refuse to debate with someone who has no possibility of giving up their poasition which they are so dogmatically married to
>1. which is the superior medium, the visual arts or music?
Define superior and consider it done. If superior means greater mass appeal, you could handle this via a survey. If it means something else, you'll have to specify.
>2. who is the most beautiful woman ever to have lived?
Again, if you mean by mass appeal, use a survey. If you mean an individual opinion, just ask someone.
3. (semi-stolen from sartre even though he's a semi-hack) there's a war against an oppressive regime going on. you have the option to join the army as a captain or take care of your family. what do you do?
Depends on the individual, and whether they value their country or their family more.
>this triggers the philosopher, as he isn't used to seeing things actually finished
>Just because its not unanimous, or doesnt have any way of verifying, deosnt mean its not meaningful
who cares about facts, feelings are meaningful
This shit is why we have cultural marxism. You're cancer.
You have missed the point.
If I say by 'most beautiful' I mean the woman with the longest hair, you might rightly ask me to justify my definition. How would this step be done?
Look, just because philosophy doesn't get easy or unanimous answers, it doesn't mean it doesn't have anything important to say
>If I say by 'most beautiful' I mean the woman with the longest hair, you might rightly ask me to justify my definition. How would this step be done?
Why would I ask that? I'm not a philosopher. By defining "beautiful" as "longest hair" I can solve your original question with a ruler, and go on with my day.
Fucking hell. 'Facts' do not exist in a vacuum. Again, we currently have contradictory 'facts' about gravity and quantum mechanics. They are meaningful 'facts' despite the fact they are hugely disputed
Here's a fact about philsophy, modus ponens
So you are saying there is no one correct answer to the question, as any definition could be used? What a silly position. By that logic, it is true that your mother is the most beautiful woman, as I'm just going to define her as that and not give any further reasoning,
I don't give a shit about your philosophical definition of "fact", I care about the common sense honest to god "this shit happens for real" kind of fact. If you go deep enough down the rabbit hole you can't justify anything, so it's better to just go with what you can see and hear.
Acquaint yourself with the history then go chronological. I'd read the DK philosophy book
If the lack of Truth or existentialism hits hard the best way to deal with I've seen is a resignation to skepticism or read Camus
Yet even in the sciences consensus opinion is that perceptual observation is deeply penetrated by cognition (any papers on New Look or cognitive penetration will back this up). Sorry to sound patronising, but you clearly have no experience with advanced science or philosophy. You can use this discourse as an oppurtunity to learn more, or to entrench yourself further in you dogmatisim. People's common sense disagree all the time. How do you adjudicate between such disagreemnets?
No one said it was going to be easy, but you have to go down the rabbit hole just a bit if you want to progress. And that is where philosophy is useful.
So, pray tell, what makes it a silly definition?
The only way you'll figure out that A -> B is through the scientific method. Of course we can't ever prove it, but we can come close to near statistical certainty that the doubt is irrelevant.
Fucking hell man. I think both the other guy and myself would agree with you and Wittgenstein that quietism is really all philosophy is good for. Quit making a disagreement when there isn't one.
ok now i know im being trolled
just in case im not, the entire scientific method RELIES HEAVILY on modus ponens (well, modus tollens in fact)
if there is contradictory evidence then the hypothesis is false
there is contradictory evidence
therefore the hypothesis is false
desu you are straight up fucking stupid if you think that science 'proves' logic
You've gone so deep into philsophy that you've lost your instinctive foundations and your mind has floated off into space and you've forgotten that there is a real world where real things happen.
>People's common sense disagree all the time. How do you adjudicate between such disagreemnets?
You fuckin talk to the guy. Maybe you change his mind, maybe he changes yours, maybe you agree to disagree.
>So, pray tell, what makes it a silly definition?
If you can' see how defining "the most objectively beautiful woman on earth" as "my mom, lol" is silly, you're too far gone.
Stop reading books for a year, go build a house, and get your foundations back.
What are you talking about. I am disagreeing that philsophy doesn't have a role in science.
In real life, and in real science, you need philsophical arguments. I have a MA in neuroscience and am working on my PhD in philsoophy. You don't just 'talk like a bro' to someone wiht an oposing theory, you construct an argument in a paper. and carefully detail the steps as to why you think they lack justification
Of course my defnition was silly, its purpose was to show that something more needs to be said vis-a-vis jsutification
Here is an excellent quote by Midgley:
"Plumbing and philosophy are both activities that arise because elaborate cultures like ours have, beneath their surface, a fairly complex system which is usually unnoticed, but which sometimes goes wrong. In both cases, this can have serious consequences. Each is hard to repair when it goes wrong, because neither of them was ever consciously planned as a whole."
When there is a disagreement at the cutting edge of science, philosophical arguments is what gets you a research bid over an opposing project. Don't tell me you can just sort everything out by common sense, its simply not how science beyond the undergraduate level works.
>Stop reading books for a year, go build a house, and get your foundations back.
Sounds like a nice thing to do though desu. Ill consider this carefully
You misunderstood me. I meant A -> B as regards to causation between events so that modus ponens could be used to solve practical problems and get you closer to your point that philosophy is "useful".
But the operation of modus ponens is philsoophy itself. In fact, all logic is, in as far as it is concerned with 'truth preservation' (i.e. what modus ponens is about: showing that from a set of things being true/false something else is also true/false (semantics), as dictated by rules (syntax) that we have established becuase we think they are jsutified)
Logic is philosophy. It is also essential to science. For example, take the law of the excluded middle (everything is either true or false and never both). People in both physics and philsoophy are now debating if this rule is justifialbe given quantum states.
>In real life, and in real science, you need philsophical arguments.
So since academia is cancerous, the correct thing to do is become cancer yourself? Just think normally and justify normally, and use science as a tool when you want shit done. If you take offense at my use of "normally", you aren't thinking normally. You're under the influence of years of conditioning that have taken you away from your optimal natural state.
>"Plumbing and philosophy are both activities that arise because elaborate cultures like ours have, beneath their surface, a fairly complex system which is usually unnoticed, but which sometimes goes wrong. In both cases, this can have serious consequences. Each is hard to repair when it goes wrong, because neither of them was ever consciously planned as a whole."
Just collect your own rainwater if shit's gotten that bad. I mean that philosophically, as well.
Sorry, its' 3:30 am here I am running a class in the morning, I don't have time to get into that now (says the man who just spent hours arguing with what are most likely high school kids on the internet anonymously)
I don't even mind Rand. at least she wasn;t a relativist
>You're under the influence of years of conditioning that have taken you away from your optimal natural state.
How do you know it isn't you who is guilty of being condition. You haven't ever had to defend your ideas in a rigorous way. You consider your view 'normal', but you've never encountered someone who considers their own (crazy) view to be 'normal'. I hate to break it to you, but disagreements can run very very deep into our conceptual frameworks. Science requires these frameworks to progress. This is the way of scientifc progress, and if you ever want to contribute to this field you will have to be able to defend your own views further than jsut saying "think normally, be less conditioned".
Christ you're insufferable. Thinking isn't as hard as you make it out to be. You're the kind of guy who would be autistically documenting the metagame of angry birds if someone hadn't tricked you into going to college.
> I don't even mind Rand. at least she wasn;t a relativis
Believe me, I actually understand fully what your point is. By the way, no one ever said "Philosophy has nothing to do with science" I agree that it plays a very quietist role. What got you all riled up was the statement "if you want objective truth, use the scientific method" You have to admit that none of your posts point to anything that can be shown to be objectively true.
>The /pol/ poster is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a /pol/ack and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out."
Well what got me riled up is anytime philosophy gets brought up on 4chan people say the most ridiculous shit that betrays a complete lack of understanding about what it is. And lots of people do indeed, including in this thread, argue that philosophy has nothing to do with science. Apologies if that is not you. I have tried to be more reserved and modertae in previous discussions but I always get trolled to YES I MAD state by the end.
By the by, I do think that philosophy is concerned with objective truth (thought I admit this hasn't been what I have been arguing for thusfar). I jsut think that justification of such objective truths is going to be less satisfying than in science, and require more independent reasoning than following waht is pronounced 'fact' by the latest textbook.
Actually, it is very hard. You're just not applying yourself
Not too spiritual but I'll check it out. Guys read anything cool recently?
I've read through this image probably 10 times by now
I've read that one once as well. I gotta find(or make) some original shit. I was more referring to books though and just posted a philosophy-related image.
In that case I'm sure you'd enjoy watching this:
It's great material by a great professor. Very interesting. It covers several philosophers and the books they've written. so chances are you'll find something you'd be interested in reading.
>no one reads nietzsche let alon fucking zizek
nietzsche is probably the most popular philosopher, I bet most people interested in philosophy have at least read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I know the state of philosophy. It's shit. Mindless driveling shit parroted by a bunch fedoras enlightened by their own intelligence , written by a bunch of dead poeple who are probably rolling over in their graves knowing that a bunch of consumer whores who have literally twisted their own words to push a fucking agenda .
So yes it's all pretentious shit.