>>675673545 I assume you're talking about causality? The point there is that we can conceive of the possibility of alternative relationships between causes and their effects thus there is no deductive proof of causation in general or in any one instance. Instead, we experience conjunctions and, by induction, posit causal relationships.
>>675673669 I'm not sure what motivates nihilism. When we reach nihilist conclusions, it just looks to me like we've gone wrong somewhere and not necessarily in our belief in the existence of whatever it is we're talking about (God, values, etc). Moral nihilism assumes that people have deep views about the absolute nature of morality and that it is only on such grounds that they make the everyday moral claims they make. That seems obviously incorrect to me. Most people don't even think about metaethics, let alone in everyday talk. Even if we do suppose absolutism in our everyday talk, I don't think that rules out the existence of real values for the same reason that incorrect absolutist statements about motion rule out the existence of motion.
>>675674295 Do you want other people to be nice to you or to like you at all? If so, that's a good reason to be nice.
>>675674358 Don't want to say which university. I'm mostly interested in history of ethics including meta, normative, and applied. Also, related political issues.
>>675673361 I'm gonna be honest with you OP. Your Philosophy degree is meaningless and you will never get a career in philosophy. What you should do is switch over to a STEM degree or something useful while also studying Philosophy in your free time.
>>675674865 I've read a bit as well as some secondary literature on it. Not interested enough to devote my life to it but I vaguely remember some interesting ideas in it.
>>675675142 Propositions are true or false on the basis of picturing what is the case. Think about it like this: a proposition is like a stencil and if it matches the world it's true, if it doesn't it's false. All other uses of language are nonsense.
>>675675527 My school is mainly known for history of philosophy.
I can't even make sense of metaethical realism so nah.
As a triple-major Criminal Law / Software Engineering / Philosophy student nearing his final semester of university, I've noticed an incredible deficiency in logical thinking among the vast majority of adults and children. Philosophy is one of the few disciplines wherein the idea of a "method for producing valid and accurate beliefs" (i.e. solid grounding in prepositional / modal / inductive logic) is even addressed, yet Philosophy is also disparaged by most others as "useless".
Most others also tend to be fucking idiots.
How does one demonstrate to an irrational (insane, really) individual that the logic reinforced through Philosophical disciplines is the only historically and empirically verified method for CONSISTENTLY producing sound and valid thoughts?
>>675675810 Do you like the idea of being a nice person? If so, that's a reason to be one regardless of whether or not someone's looking. Would your psychological health change if you were nice? I think so. Would that help you achieve other goals in life? I think so. If that's right, then it's another good reason to care about being nice.
>>675675866 I usually just avoid engaging with those types of people. The only thing that could change their minds is life experiences which I don't know I could provide for them other than by trying to live an exemplary sort of life that, hopefully, they'll notice.
>>675676301 The only way you could is if you're incredibly rich, have lots of free time, and are surrounded by highly intelligent people. Philosophy isn't a solitary activity. Universities offer basically the only opportunities to study philosophy in a meaningful way. That's not to say that ordinary people wouldn't benefit from reading some but they aren't going to get what they could from a real philosophical education.
>>675676310 I mostly agree. I think it works against forms of naturalism that don't recognize the contingency of the relationships between moral language and natural facts. There are always going to be trackable natural facts that correspond to someone's use of moral terms but I think that which moral terms are adopted and who is adopting them are largely a matter of social conditions. That's why I usually waver between different forms of relativism and contextualism.
>>675676933 >they aren't going to get what they could get from a real philosophical education If you buy books, go to a library, write notes in a journal, and at the very least have people to debate with you are capable of getting a full philosophical education from life.
>>675676301 You can, but I don't see how that's relevant. I could just as easily say to you, "prove to me that you can't discipline yourself with Software Engineering / Spanish / Mathematics / Chemistry / (insert other discipline here) on your own time as opposed to wasting your time on a (insert other discipline here) degree", but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Think of it this way: the human brain is analogous to a computer. What we learn and commit to memory, then, is analogous to software. Logic defines the framework upon which our universe operates (i.e. supplies things from fundamental rules, such as "an entity that is a dog cannot also NOT be a dog", to more complex applications of fundamental rules, such as "although the premises in Person A's argument are all true, the conclusion they present does not follow as a result of contradictions X, Y, and Z within their argument." Philosophy provides this framework that, if followed, virtually guarantees that you will only arrive to conclusions that are valid and sound.
However, very few people ever receive this framework, as it's not mandatory.
The conclusion, then, is that people without that important software make many more frequent errors that would be pertinent to their lives and occupation than they otherwise would have. If we value efficiency and expertise, then having at least a rudimentary grasp of logic (something that is currently only taught within the Philosophy [and occasionally Mathematics] discipline) should be required by all professions.
>>675677517 Well, you see. You can be self taught in all of those things you mentioned and the only reason to get a degree in any of those things you mentioned is to be able to show that you can do it if you are already capable yourself of learning the materials in your free time. College/University is a place of higher learning but if the individual is capable of higher learning on their own the only reason to go to college is to get that piece of paper that qualifies you as a professional. Being a professional philosopher will not get OP anywhere.
>>675676649 Enginnering beats philosophy sure, but look at median mid career income. 81k is far from poverty. In fact, its more than the average for Chemistry, marketing, geology, poli sci, accounting, management, IT, etc. And these are just undergrads.
People who don't know what they're talking about like to cite philosophy as one of those useless majors that commits one to a life of poverty. This is just false. Look at the actual data.
>>675678172 You do realize that the starting salary for Philosophy is 39,900 and that might not even include jobs which revolve around Philosophy? If you're working in a call center making 40k a year that has nothing to do with your Philosophy degree but more to do with your bach degree being worth more than some guys high school diploma. Also that chart essentially says that you will make anywhere between 35k - 52k which isn't poverty but the careers you would get using your philosophy degree probably have nothing to do with philosophy.
>>675677517 >implying predicate logic isn't one of the easiest branches of mathematics that could easily be taught in elementary school I don't care how pretty text you can write or how many commas you can insert in a sentence. That shit you just described is high school level.
By the way most respectable CS programs have one specific course in mathematical logic.
>>675679523 But the pay doesn't matter because there are careers specifically towards chemistry. Those chemistry majors are probably going on to be lab technicians and things of that sort. With a philosophy degree and a philosophy degree alone, the only specific careers for that degree are things like teaching and writing.
I'm not implying otherwise. You're not reading. Specifically, I stated that most people I encounter in an academic setting cannot logic. The vast majority of them have professions that depend on their ability to reason. This is bad. That most of them have never needed to take a single course in logic in their lives means that the most obvious solution is to require instruction in this area.
Also, having programmed a great deal and read dozens of textbooks, I'd be willing to bet that many Philosophy majors could easily write pseudo-code for algorithms. In fact, we could very much use more people writing algorithms, as it's an area that most computer scientists find incredibly fucking boring. Philosophers, on the other hand, practically jizz themselves trying to reason their way through problems. Pretty sure one girl in a previous semester literally did just that, from the way her voice lilted mid-discussion.
This depends on who you ask. Some of my colleagues declare epistemology "the most pointless area in Philosophy". I disagree.
In their words, "it doesn't matter that we cannot empirically prove whether or not we can have knowledge of anything because that's too theoretical and far-removed from human concerns to matter in most cases." I certainly don't disagree with them, there.
However, they similarly seemed to ignore the core point of epistemology. That we have yet to even arrive at a suitable definition of "knowledge" is not as important as the discourse surrounding it is. Yeah, we've still not succeeded. But we've developed and improved various processes by MILES in the process of trying to find an answer! This, I think, is the key reason Epistemology matters: in trying to discover whether or not we can have knowledge, we grow more and more sophisticated in how we choose to define it. I, myself, see myself as more of an Analytic Philosopher, and hold that knowledge can most certainly be derived by looking at language. But that's neither here nor there.
In short, current perspectives clash, maybe more now than before. If you wish to form your own opinion (and haven't already given this site a look), Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great resource. Their entry on Epistemology is pretty thorough, though not at all the end-all, be-all of the topic.
What would you recommend for an individual who is starting to have thoughts about human existence being insignificant next to the vastness of the universe. How everything we do in the end is not actually important why do we care so much? Thanks in advance
This is certainly an interesting question! While I don't have any specific authors in mind, I can provide perhaps a small summary that might steer your search.
Answers to "why do we care (despite the reality that each action is but a drop in the bucket)?" are rooted in sociology and psychology. For civilized Western cultures, we're brought up with strong attachments to self, community, and abstract ideas of accomplishment. Ideas are very similar to software: they present a unique state of thought configuration within our minds that interact with the existing cesspool of other thought configurations that make up who we are. The more often, intensely, and earlier an idea is presented to a human machine, the more likely it will be adopted into its software repository (i.e. consciousness, or personality). So for many of us, despite knowing that our existence will be forgotten within a couple centuries, we have deeply-embedded programming to act as if our lives and actions matter a great deal.
Does that sort of answer your question? I feel like I should know the name of at least one author who could explain it better than I could, but I'm presently drawing blanks.
>>675683067 This was great. I would've loved to have something to read since I have found these liking to philosophy recently thanks to a class I am taking. I wanted to go further into people that had these same thoughts. Those were good keys regardless. Thanks /b/ro
>>675675014 What is a good response to Williams' amoralist? Is contextualism a good response to the skeptic? If so, What about epistemic closure? Can you take me through Frege's sense-reference distinction? Whose theory of proper names is better, Kripke's or Russell's
>>675673361 Can you give a real example of using Hegelian dialectics? I mean, it's simple to give an example of using classical logic to reach some conclusion, but dialectics seems extremely contrived; it seems one could come to any conclusion given one concept and its contradiction depending on one's subjective experience.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.