Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: p02hrslh.jpg (12KB, 320x320px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 320x320px
Why is it that any attempt to point out the arbitrariness of the selection of axioms in philosophy brings about a huge amount of dissembling by people? I think it's because Philosophy (as it is categorised by academia) lovers don't want to admit it.
There are so many strawmen and stupid appeals thrown about. I ask about the arbitrariness of axioms and I ask for people to acknowledge that out of the infinite possible fields of inquiry for philosophers to explore, academia explores extremely few of them.
>Oh my God, you're not dismissing ALL OF PHILOSOPHY?!!!!
No, pointing out that academic inquiry does not consittute the entire space of possible philosophy isn't dismissing the actual subject itself.
>Well Science CAN'T give us value judgement.
I agree but to imply that the rest of philosophy can escape the axiom-criteria-deduction framework is wrong, unless you want to create your own stupid logic system or something.
>Well *prepackaged philosophy from famous philosopher X says*
>*question them about it*
>After lots of questioning they say, as an aside, that Philosopher X assumes about ten trilllion different things
I'm serious.
>Philosophy asks the IMPORTANT questions. Philosophy is HARD. Stop questioning us EVER!
Just because you try something important or hard doesn't mean you should be treated like you've achived something important or hard, or that you should ignore questions.
>>
>science versus philosophy mentality
Stopped perceiving there.
>>
>>2241344
read on kiddo, I see science as a subset of philosophy
>>
You are entirely correct.
Which is why we must consistently advocate the reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations' so that plebs can realise Justification comes to an end whereby we must passover to mere description.
>>
>>2241355
Thank you.
I urge everyone NOT to use the word "useful" when mentioning this. It sets off the "le what is useful" stuff that they (rightfully) use against level 0 STEMtards.
Simply point out the infinitely many possible philosophies and axioms and criteria*.
*I see criteria as axioms but just to antitipate the "how do you define X" arguments.
>>
>>2241370
>I urge everyone NOT to use the word "useful" when mentioning this. It sets off the "le what is useful" stuff that they (rightfully) use against level 0 STEMtards.
Do you mean when you are debating axioms with a STEMtard and he turns to the argument "HUR DUR EXPLAIN ALL THE COMPUTERS AND IPHONES WE HAVE"
Because yes, I hate that too.
>>
>>2241374
I don't mean debating a stemtard. I mean I was debating a Philosophaggot and he uses that "Hur what is useful?" argument when I made no claim about philosophy's usefulness. I simply pointed out the infinitely many possible philosophies.
But I agree that that stemtard view is retarded as well (ok, in practice i'd rather have my iphone and have views on what is useful but you know what I mean)
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1