Are philosophers no more than pseudointellectuals? Philosophers

>>1488895
>Are philosophers no more than pseudointellectuals?
Take a look at r/philosophy, you know it to be true

File: 1458649246935.jpg (60KB, 597x590px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 597x590px

>Are philosophers no more than pseudointellectuals?
No

>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science, that's why they opt to babble about whatever that's popular and play with words to gain attention. They are only intellectual frauds who contribute nothing to humanity.
These assertions are untrue and without merit.

They also fail both the evidence and reasoning tests for a valuable argument.

>>1488895
You can't think

Here you go, though:
>(You)

Also, notice how bad psychology is testable. Yet philosophy is not! Madness.

>>1488895
And this whole post was a bunch of unverifiable, impressionistic babble. So well done, science man.

Banned.

>>1488897
>These assertions are untrue and without merit.
>They also fail both the evidence and reasoning tests for a valuable argument.

Your assertion about my assertions being untrue and without merit, is untrue and without merit.

It also fails fails both the evidence and reasoning tests for a valuable argument.

I can do this all day. You're no more than a player on words.

>>1488895
Philosophers actually enjoy mathematics and science. Most Philosophers(who aren't reddit tier) enjoyed learning.

>>1488895


>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science

Prove it.

>that's why they opt to babble about whatever that's popular

Prove it.

>play with words to gain attention.

Prove it.

>They are only intellectual frauds who contribute nothing to humanity.

Prove it.

>>1488895
>>1488895
Are stemfags no more than pseudointellectuals?

Stemfags are too stupid for philosophy and literature, that's why the opt to babble about whatever that's popular and play with numbers to gain attention. They are only intellectual frauds who contribute nothing to humanity.

If you call yourself a stemfag, I'll mock you.

File: r926916_9677185[1].jpg (19KB, 340x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x227px

Once they were needed to build the basis of science as we know it today. But yes, philosophers nowdays are nothing more than pseuds

>>1488904
>Prove it.

Prove it.

>>1488907

Nice rebuttal faggotron. Blocked. Don't ever respond to me again.

>>1488895
>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science
This is just embarrassing bait. You can't possibly be this ignorant.

>>1488908
>Nice rebuttal

Prove it.

>faggotron

Prove it.

>>1488906

>he fails to understand that the basis-building is still going on

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see, you plebeian piece of shit"

--Arthur Schopenhauer

>>1488895
Now that you have some (You)'s, I'd like to systematically pick apart your argument.

>Are philosophers no more than pseudointellectuals?
Define "philosophers", "pseudointellectuals", and what "more than" means.

>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science, that's why they opt to babble about whatever that's popular and play with words to gain attention.
I'm not going to bother linking it, but there's a study from Loyola University proving a strong correlation between mathematical and philosophical aptitude - that refutes your first point. And second, you're obviously using "they" as a reference to "pseudointellectuals", not "philosophers", as in no way does any inherent quality of philosophy dictate a relation to "whatever that's popular."

>They are only intellectual frauds who contribute nothing to humanity.
The biggest hole in this argument is that you can't define "contribute... to humanity."

>If you call yourself a philosopher, I'll mock you.
Why not question a philosopher on their pseudo-intellectualism, their ineptitude in mathematics and science, their concern with "babbling" about whatever's popular and their habits of garnering attention, and then lastly ask what their contribution to society is?

File: 1455432056708.jpg (216KB, 800x1199px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 800x1199px

>>1488902
It must (underline the 'must' three times) be axiomatic to reject assertions with no accompanying evidence or reasoning.

If that were not the case, my simple assertion "at the centre of the earth is a golden banana" would be true until disproved.

That is an example of the philosophical concept of Burden of Proof - a concept which was adopted by Science (another term for "rational sceptical enquiry", a product of Attic Greek philosophy).

Dismissing your tepic, childish and obviously b8/8/m8 assertions was an example of Burden of proof's (necessarily) entailed corollary, often rendered as Hitchens's Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

tl;dr: Science demands we reject OP until he gives reasons/evidence.

Didn't they teach you anything in elementary school?

>>1488895
OP, by making this post and stating your claims, you've become a philosopher. A very shitty one, but a philosopher, nonetheless.

Define "true" intellectuals first.

>>1488912
>Define "philosophers", "pseudointellectuals", and what "more than" means.

You're setting a trap like a usual philosopher does. Whatever meaning I'm going to assign to them, you're going to deny and say "that's not what a philosopher/pseudointellectual is, (continues constructing a meaningless definition that suits you)." Stop with the word play, you know what it means. If you're asking for more, I'll assume it's sophistry/trolling.

>I'm not going to bother linking it, but there's a study from Loyola University proving a strong correlation between mathematical and philosophical aptitude - that refutes your first point.

Oh, I'm not going to bother linking it, but there is a study from Yorkshire university proving that there is no correlation between mathematical and philosophical aptitude - that refutes that study. Post the link or I'll assume that's just babbling/trolling.

>And second, you're obviously using "they" as a reference to "pseudointellectuals", not "philosophers", as in no way does any inherent quality of philosophy dictate a relation to "whatever that's popular."

Tying to make it seem more complicated than it is. Nice try, faggot.

>The biggest hole in this argument is that you can't define "contribute... to humanity."

Again, trying to trap me in this whole definition shit. Is this a b8?

>Why not question a philosopher on their pseudo-intellectualism, their ineptitude in mathematics and science, their concern with "babbling" about whatever's popular and their habits of garnering attention, and then lastly ask what their contribution to society is?

Because they won't answer honestly, and play with words and make it seem that they've contributed a lot to society. Pure rhetoric and sophistry.

>>1488895
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out.

It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?

Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

>>1488916
If you'd benefited at least a little from philosophy, you'd be able to argue without using so many logical fallacies.

>>1488917
One would presume you live in the woods, entirely to your own devices and your internet connection was a mere accident of nature.

>>1488916
If this isn't bait and you're not 13 years old, you're hopeless and you should, with respect to your positivist values, commit suicide as an assertion, a calliclean rejection of philosophy

>>1488916
http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=luc_diss

The definitions are important because it gives me an insight into what argument you're trying to make, not what argument I think you're trying to make.

What is a philosopher to you? What is a pseudo-intellectual to you? What does "no more than" mean to you?

>Trying to make it seem more complicated than it is.
No I'm not - I'm outlining the fault in your argument: you're ascribing traits to philosophers that are completely unrelated to the field of philosophy.

I can't even tell what's bait anymore, because I feel like the average person on /lit/ is really this stupid.

>>1488920
It would be extremely painful.

>>1488923
You're a big sophist

>>1488923
But it would also effectively end all pain.

>>1488925
Was being a philosopher part of your plan?

Philosophers fail with the *belief* that "thought" is the highest concourse of human existence.

>>1488926
What plan? What are you talking about?

>>1488926
Of course... Western civilisation refused our intellectual zeitgeist in favour of yours, we had to find out what he told you.

>>1488926
Why the fuck are these other people replying to you when I'm the one who made the OP that you just replied to?

To answer your question: I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>1488929
Nothing. I know that I know nothing!

File: Screenshot_2016-07-31-20-37-33.png (226KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1080x1920px

>>1488921
It's 'A study of Mathematical ability as related to reasoning and use of symbols', and not 'A study of Mathematical ability as related to philosophy.'

I'm not sure if you're trolling at this point, but good try, I fell for it. I guess you post whatever that confirms your bias.

I'm an engineer and I hate how people who study philosophy never shut the fuck up about it. They always find a way to bring it into the conversation.

I do not bring up mathematics and physics to normal people, and you shouldn't force your metaphysical garbage where it doesn't belong. Nobody wants to hear it.

Also, enjoy your worthless degrees.

>>1488930
Dude, if you're going to bitch, at least put on a skirt.

>>1488932
Read the fucking report you dingus.

>>1488933
That's because philosophy is something that many people can benefit from. I'm also a computer engineer, but I got minors in english and philosophy because they are fields I'm interested in. You're literally the cancerous type of person that I would never hire because you think pure, empirical data is what will improve life.

>>1488935
That rational mindset is what allowed the West to thrive throughout the Industrial Revolution and beyond, mate. Everything was reduced to math and formulas and this allowed everything to become as efficient as possible.

>>1488936
It also led to the increase in suicide and depression in the most industrialized societies the world over.

>>1488936
Nassim Taleb argues it was more about tinkering.

>>1488937
When has philosophy been a beacon for happiness?

>>1488937
Prove it.

Please don't give so many replies to a bad thread.

>>1488939
When has anything been a beacon for happiness? Philosophy only acts as a comforting light in an otherwise bleak existence.

>>1488941
Thanks for your reply, and mine.

>>1488940
If you don't believe it, I have no vested interest in making you believe it. There are countless studies, but you can start with increases in suicide during industrialization in Victorian England.

>>1488942
Finally! A psued admits philosophy has no relation to existence! It's pure escapism.

>>1488944
I'm sorry you don't have a mind of your own to speak. You have just agreed with others. Sad!

>>1488945
I don't think philosophers often say that philosophy is all that will be needed to live- it's just something that might help us understand concepts that might actually be impossible to comprehend. But isn't everything escapism, technically speaking?

>>1488946
This has to be bait.

>>1488895
>Are philosophers no more than pseudointellectuals?
Only the french postmodedrnists.

>>1488937
I think it has more to do with lack of identities. In the past, your profession was decided for you, whether by your family or caste system, and it gave you an identity. Family units were strong, as was national pride, and religion. All of these led to a strong sense of self.

All of these things are pretty much dead in the modern day. Now, the rational mindset of Industrialized countries pushing out traditional beliefs are likely a cause of this, sure; however, I see no reason these can't coexist. Scientists have always existed, and I have met plenty of engineers at my university that come from rigid families and are religious despite having a mathematical profession.

>>1488948
>uses Donald Trump parlance

Yeah, it's too subtle for me to figure out either.

>>1488947
Almost everything, yes.

Our big brains provide many routes.

>>1488944
>you don't believe it

Prove it.

>>1488953
beliefs and proofs are diametrically opposed

>>1488942
I don't find it comforting, but rather unnerving. Once you begin you can't stop and you also don't wish to stop; but philosophy often leads to depression. A lot of those great men we admire succumbed to the uneasiness of their minds.

Philosophy is a monster that chews you and spits a bloody mass of despair. The concept of blissfulness in ignorance is not devoid of truth.

>>1488955
The mind is the great magnifier--including of the abyss.

>>1488954

Prove it.

>>1488956
The mind creates its own well and then dives in it.

>>1488957
By definition a belief doesn't imply evidence or good reason to have it. Proof is completely neutral to what it implies, it simply is.

>>1488958
I work alone.

>>1488957
WHOAH

>>1488895
look at that picture of socrates you uploaded that his sour response face to what you just said

>>1488960
Yet you're not devoid of external influence. Every author you've read is working with you.

>>1488960
You saying you ain't ubuntu?

>>1488959
Prove it.

>>1488962
I don't care. He's dead. Philosophy is dead. He was an ugly loser who liked roaming around the streets to show off his "intellect" to get laid or something. Probably wanted attention like other philosophers.

>>1488965
HAHAHAHA

>>1488964
I don't know what that is. *cries*

>>1488963
You get another WHOAH.

>>1488966
Did you just find out what trolling is today, son?

Welcome!

>>1488917

You are correct.

STEMlords don't even have the ability to reason. They have a bag of tricks and a set of unquestioned beliefs that fill in the gaps of their knowledge, which are quite massive and numerous. Ask a STEMlord to explain something a philosopher concerns themselves with and they will say "it can be explained materially", as if this itself constitutes an explanation. They will never realize why this is useless and dishonest and will get very upset with you if you suggest that actually trying might be a better approach to knowledge.

I asked about philosophy and they say Plato was good
But the only good Plato I ever had was a plat-o chips

>>1488972
HA

>>1488965
I won't provide citations. Do your own homework. I've stated facts that can be easily checked.

I realize you're trolling, but for the sake of the argument, self-indulging in solipsism never leads to anything Anon.

>>1488971
See:

>>1488919

>>1488895
Here, my friends, we have what I like to call a 4th generation STEMfag.
There are four generations of science.
The first was the generation which considered science and philosophy to be inseparable. We will chose Tales to represent this generation.
The second, while still philosophers, or at least still philosophically aware, saw philosophy more as a prerequisite. Early empiricists are the best example of this generation.
Then we have the third generation, the first generation which does away entirely with philosophy, or at least believes to. They have what they call "the scientific method" and operate accordingly. These are what we today consider "actual scientists".
Finally, we have the forth generation, which neither consists of empiricist nor scientists in any proper sense of the word. These are basically uncritical theists. Without daring to question, they will believe whatever generation 3 tells them. True, it's not quite like theism, in that what they are told could perhaps be confirmed, but since they would never bother to do so, it is much the same phenomenon. This is the generation of "I fucking love science" facebook followers and probably kids like OP.

>>1488975

> So incapable of thoguht you can't even recognize your entire argument as a basic fallacy

Everyone thinks STEM majors are smart because they immerse themselves in endless expressions and equations. STEM majors are not even stupid.

>>1488976
Thales*
fourth*

>>1488977
No true scotman fallacy used three times in the same paragraph.

STEM majors can be deluded, yet STEM and philosophy are not opposite to each other, you're simply writing about idiotic people, which you can find in any field.

>>1488976
I personally have a love-hate relationship with philosophy.

On the one hand, philosophy says profound things but it is also - it seems - a closed circle of jerking.

I also read psychology and other fields, you'll see philosophers being mentioned but I have yet to see a philosopher mention something from other fields of science.

>>1488979

Now I see that you've mislearned what reasoning you might have had by lazily picking it up "through osmosis". What do you think STEMlord means? Do you think it means everyone who studies a STEM field? I'm a Computer Scientist, so obviously I don't mean that.

STEM and philosophy not being opposite to each other is precisely the point I'm making.

Your argument was literally "STEMlords built things so you're wrong". It's fallacious because it's irrelevant, because building things doesn't make your arguments correct, and because many if not most of the people who have built such things aren't STEMlords as such. Think please.

>>1488895
Some are pseudointellectuals
Some are bullies and blowhards
Some are bluffers
Same can be said for misosophers

>>1488981
I accept your argument and concede I was debating a strawman. A post made earlier was talking about STEM in general and I was arguing against that.

My poor knowledge of this place lore, regarding terms as «STEMlord», has betrayed me.

Thank you for your clarification.

The real question is, why do philosophers get laid so much more than stemfags?

Aristotle wrote on his Metaphysics a simple explanation of the three dimensions. About the law of mass conservation two thousand years before Lomonósov and Lavoisier. He knew all colors were derived of the white. He also said colors don't exist but the notion of colors. He even went as far as saying entropy is a baseless fear amongst physics, arguing that the first motor of all has to have unlimited force just to be able to start.

>Not a scientist

>>1488985
Don't bother. They will revere figures like Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle, or Descartes in certain contexts and then completely dismiss them in other contexts.

>>1488986
Well, Newton was an alchemist. Being outstanding in a subject doesn't give you a free pass from judgement for your ignorance of others.

>>1488987
No, but I find it a little foolish to claim them as these great heroes of STEM tradition and then to in a different context call them idiots because god forbid someone 2500 years ago had a different idea of cosmogony.
Should one not recognize them as a whole, and consider that, even if we from our standpoint today can demonstrate certain ideas of theirs to be false, that they were indeed great thinkers nonetheless, and much more so than any of us actually?
I guess this is perhaps me just being bitter from interactions with STEMlords.

>>1488988
Yes, of course. I agree completely.

>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science

sam harris has a degree in neuroscience. Just because some people are interested in philosophy and have an opinion on it doesnt mean they are stupid

>>1488990
Sam Harris gets a lot of flake around here as a faux philosopher. I respect the man nonetheless.

What many fail to understand is the meaning of philosophy as the search for the truth. The love for the truth.

Be it on mathemathics, physics, chemistry, biology (of which Aristotle is considered the forefather; remember he was also a medic). All of them sciences aim to the same goal: the ultimate truth. But i guess faggots like the OP think philosophy is literally arguing in the agora.

File: 12355.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>1488992
Truth is fragile, what we need is sucker/non-sucker.

t. Talebian

op is right

Phil fags are triggered

top kek

>>1488974
>I won't provide citations.

Prove it.

>>1488995
It would be extremely mathematical.

>>1488996
More importantly. Do ideas exist independently of sentient beings?

>>1488995
Prove you are using a device to connect to the internet.

>>1488976
Not all STEM fags are S though.

>>1488933
>i only do small talk
thats sad

>>1488981
The post he was replying to said stem major and not stemlord smartass.

>>1488895
low level thinker

>>1488895
>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science

Categorically false. Even Hegel used fucking calculus.

>>1489003
Using it and using it intelligently are not the same, sensi.

>>1489004
Would you be able to understand whether he used it intelligently or not?

>>1488895
Philosophers invented science and mathematics, dumb fuck.

>>1488923
For you.

>>1488916
Da fuck is Yorkshire university

>>1488935
>because you think pure, empirical data is what will improve life.
As opposed to philosophy. which is what led to socialism, marxism, communism, etc?
It's weird how capitalism is has the least philosophical basis, yet is the most successful.

>>1489350
>Capitalism, successful
/thread

>>1488913
HAHA OP BTFO
Excellent post, patrician

>>1488895
>mathematics and science
ah yes, very impressive mr positivist

>>1488915
Utility men, useful sheep to scuttle along and bring benefit to the sheep collective.

>>1489350
>capitalism is has the least philosophical basis
you must be very stupid

...My memory—the memory of a man of science, if I may say so!—is full of arrogant naivetés I have heard about philosophy and philosophers from young scientists and old physicians (not to speak of the most cultured and conceited [gebildetsten und eingebildetsten] of all scholars, the philologists and schoolmen, who are both by profession—). Now it was the specialist and jobbing workman who instinctively opposed synthetic undertakings and capacities in general; now the industrious laborer who had got a scent of the otium [leisure] and noble luxury in the philosopher's physical economy and felt wronged and diminished by it. Now it was that color blindness of the utility man who sees in philosophy nothing but a series of refuted systems and a wasteful expenditure which "benefits" nobody. Now a fear of disguised mysticism and a rectification of the frontiers of knowledge leaped out; now a disrespect for an individual philosopher which had involuntarily generalized itself into a disrespect for philosophy. Finally, what I found most frequently among young scholars was that behind the arrogant disdain for philosophy there lay the evil after-effect of a philosopher himself, from whom they had, to be sure, withdrawn their allegiance, without, however, having got free from the spell of his disparaging evaluation of other philosophers—the result being a feeling of ill humor towards philosophy in general.

Ancient Philosophers: extremely simple observations mixed freely with whatever personal bias they might have at the time

Modern "Philosophers": studied Ancient philosophers and parrots the same old unanswerable questions while being edgy and deep about it

>>1489350
> which is what led to socialism, marxism, communism, etc?
Except Marxism has an empirical, materialist basis. So you can't really posit anything to interfere with marxist theory.

>>>1488985
Best post in the thread

>>1488895
Whatever happened to being a rounded individual?

If you're gonna be a scientist, nothing stops you from reading philosophy. In fact it would give you a much more interesting understanding of the world

Similarly, if you're a philosopher you should have a fairly decent grasp of modern science, given that we've managed to explain a lot of pretty important stuff regarding our world and the way we came to be the way we are.

Indeed, the best scientists and best philosophers seem to be exactly like this. Only 4chan STEMlords and philosophy baristas choose to shut themselves in their little bubbles.

>>1488895
>Philosophers are too stupid for mathematics and science
Don't post on /his/ if you are this ignorant of history.

>>1488996
For you.

>>1488933
>engineer
>versed in mathematics and physics
pick one you applied faggot