Can you prove anything in philosophy?

>>2125278
no

that's why its a bullshit soft 'science' like psychology and social 'sciences'

>>2125278
Things can be "proven" (concluded without any doubt) only in closed, dogmatic systems like logics and mathematics with stone-set axioms taken without doubt. Otherwise they fall into the problem of induction. We can assume things with a degree of certainity (enough to be useful), but never actually and doubtlessly know them.

>>2125288
Science a subset of philosophy

>>2125303
Whoops, misread the OP. Didn't catch the "in philosophy".
>>2125288
Actually most of philosophy is the analysis of a priori concepts (phenomenology and metaphysics notwithstanding, but they work very closely with science, and their job is to think up hypotheses that might or might not later be empirically checked) and their relations. There can be no empiric "proof" for them and it is unnecessary nonetheless.

>>2125316
>nonetheless
Ignore this part, please.

>>2125314
Shutup

>>2125278
Philosophy and science were originally indistinguishable. Philosophic inquiries that actually lead to something conclusive became disciplines of their own and only the subjective, meaningless and (inherently or currently) unprovable questions were left to "philosophers".

>>2125278
lol i dunno lemme try
X = X
did I do it mom?

>>2125278
You can only prove anything within a given framework.
No framework is sufficient to construct all valid statements.

Sorry to /thread on my own post, but.

/thread

>>2125331
Philosophy is a subset of science.

>>2125512
>X=X
>basically A=A
>is a Randian objectivist
Why

>>2125278
I think therefore I am

>>2125522
This

Yeah, you can prove certain subsets of logic by showing that contradiction of them is impossible, but anything beyond such basic underpinnings is out of the question for being "proven."

Mind you, you can't prove anything with any other discipline, you just assume that everyone is willing to make the first leap it takes to get on the same playing field and go from there, but you'll never be able to convince a genuine dissenter.

>>2125900
But what does it mean to be? Can you be considered to exist in any sense but a strictly subjective, idealistic sense? Do "you" (you know, the bits of you that make you a unique entity) have a "real" existence?

Depends on what the threshold for it being proven is set to be.

>>2125288

lol OK Dawkins.

>>2125278

Yes. Gullibility is mankind's most vast untapped resource.

>>2125278

What's 1,000,000 + 9,000,000?

How do you know?

Theory. Not proof.

To prove it, you'd have to gather together 1,000,000 apples and 9,000,000 other apples and count them all together.

Philosophy is that same kind of theory.

It's pretty solid shit, it's based on observation like any other science. But it's the redheaded stepchild of academia because, well, the only way to prove a philosophical truth is to experience it firsthand, and, well, ego gets in the way of that experience... taints it... hampers it... sometimes leads us into pure delusion where we can wallow in our own shells like hermit crabs for years, decades, before we get bored in there and come back out into the bright light of child-like wonder.

Academia is a breeding ground for newer, bigger ego. So you get that feeling that philosophy is the black sheep, it is. But not as much as pseudo-science and creationism! Ha! If I were an academic pursuit, I would not want to be those guys right now! XD

File: IMG_0106.jpg (23KB, 220x262px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x262px

>>2125900
>"I"