Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1489404600449.jpg (51KB, 343x499px) Image search:
[Google]
51KB, 343x499px
Philosophers just flail about within the space of unfalsifiable ideas. This book is no different. Why do people take this more seriously than the man on the street's idea if they're both consistent with scientific consensus? Marketing.
And as soon as scientists discover more stuff, philosophers will stand on their shoulders and claim that, yes, scientists may have completely isolated the neuroalgorithms / particles for consciousness, but scientists can't tell us *unknown*! Science has failed! We NEED philosophy!
Note, I'm not saying that the scientific method can tell us how to live, or that science isn't philosophy, or that there is a single scientific method, or any over reaching shit like that. I'm simply saying that there are infinitely many viewpoints (and criteria for judging viewpoints (and criteria for judging criteria...)) and academic philosophy does not exhaust these. If you point this out to philosophy fans, they will go crazy because you're challenging their dominance of the discourse.
>>
>>2503239
I hate to bump such a shit thread, but who was the last philosopher you read?
>>
>>2503268
Why does it matter? Why do you think anyone can escape the axiom-deduction method?
>>
>>2503276
Just want to know what kind of philosophers you are basing this straw man on.
>>
>>2503239
Advances in neuroscience will eventually take care of the problem. There's no point in engaging with & Humanities about it when the answers are going to come from elsewhere. Better to discuss history instead..
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1