ITT: philosophers who were stupid

All of them.

>>2842220
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

>>2842285
this tbqhwyf

The ones who can't do math.

File: fedora_fail_14.jpg (22KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x600px

ITT: NEETs who didn't achieve anything in life thinking they're intelligent because they're dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants

>>2842305
Thanks, /sci/.

>>2842311
hurr durr somebody wrote something in a book, that means what they said is unassailable. Nice bait, it tastes good.

>>2842325
Nice strawman fallacy, it's a great addition to your previous ad hominem fallacy.

I never claimed that these philosophers are 'unassailable'. I merely stated that it's easy to call more intelligent philosophers as 'stupid' 2500 years later (with the benefit of science and the ideas of others), while never actually proving that their ideas are stupid.

>>2842305
>Bad philosophers aren't the ones bad at philosophy but the ones bad at math
hurr durr

>>2842305
This is true though. Anyone who can't do math is stupid.

>>2842374
So most of /his/ then.

File: why.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>2842392
Don't remind me.

>>2842372
Good thing the thread isn't about bad at philosophers retard

>>2842220
It's pretty infallible, actually. If you exist now, the chances of you dying are infinitesimal, because the universe knows ways around death. The chances of you existing right now are so tiny that you may as well claim to be immortal. Epicurus was right.

>>2842681
>the universe knows
God you're stupid

>>2842681
The statement is incoherent because it assumes "life" and "death" are more than just arbitrary borders. Anyone who believes in dualism has to be fucking illiterate because the idea is demonstrably paradoxical.

>>2842701
Well, okay. Let me speak clearly. The life forms in the universe found a way around death. That this is possible is clear because you exist. Otherwise life could always exist, but only once ever, because, assuming consciousnesses arise randomly, it only happens once for you. Does that sound okay?

>>2842712
I'm not sure I follow.

>>2842715
>the lifeforms in the universe found a way around death
When did they do this? When they weren't existing?
>no, it still doesn't sound ok

>>2842220

It's not about being in a state of death, which seems to be what the quote is suggesting, but rather the fear of that state. He says to not fear the death-state because death-state isn't around when you are, but that's not the fucking point. It's knowing that death is a-comin. It'd be like Epicurus saying

>when the axe murderer is not, I am
>when the axe murderer is (in my house killing me), I am not
>Why fear the axe murderer?

Because they're coming to fucking kill you, that's fucking why you dumb fuck

>>2842721
I meant to say, you exist once ever, assuming we can't circumvent the natural way, but the universe can still always produce life, just not you, more than once, given the probabilities are one in infinite, or something close to it.

>>2842720
"Death" in this context requires souls to exist, and the idea of souls is self-contradictory.

>>2842733
>you exist once ever,
Do you have anything to justify this paranormal notion of uniqueness?

>>2842741
It's my common sense telling me so. I'm saying consciousness arises randomly, therefore there are an infinite of them, therefore you are a one in infinite. That's where I am coming from, no real math knowledge but I guess that's where you guys come in, ne?

>>2842747
>common sense
Really bro

>therefore there are an infinite of them,
Observation indicates that there is only one.

>>2842752
Infinite possible consciousnesses. I am one, you are two, etc. But we will never be again, given the odds, conprende?

>>2842732
He's not saying that you shouldn't fear dying. He's saying that you shouldn't fear being dead, because when you are dead, you won't even be cognizant of it.

>>2842761
>I am one, you are two, etc.
That assumption is unfounded.

>>2842770
Okay you're just being difficult for the sake of it. I get the funny "I can't be sure of other people's existence" joke in philosophy but that's not relevant here. Anyways this is getting stupid.

>>2842741
That's not paranormal or ever supernatural, even if it is an assumption that you only exist once ever. However, you can only be certain that you will exist once. You cannot assume anything beyond your own lifespan, even though you might hope for it, because there is no proof of an existence beyond death.

>>2842766

Sure, but what I'm saying is that statement is a worthless one to make. The only reason people care about death is because one day all of the good things you have, i.e., life, will come to an end, forever. That's the fear. Fearing or not fearing some death-state isn't the point. Epicurus seems to be trying to make a philosophical idea by erroneously moving the issue into a category that no one is actually talking about; like a guy who takes things too literally. No one fears the feeling of being dead, it's that your life, in which everything you love happens, will end, which sucks.

>>2842782
It is relevant because the existence of "private" experience is proven impossible by the interaction problem. If you accept the idea that you can only know one, then it logically follows that there only IS one, because it is impossible for there to be inaccessible "private" information.

>>2842796
Are you saying that, far as I can be concerned, my consciousness is the only one because it's the only one I can "see", or ever will? I'm not sure I understand.

>>2842790
Well, personally I fear losing my life, everything in it and everything that I could potentially do with it, but I also fear the idea of the void, so I think both distinctions are appropriate to make. While I'm aware that this fear of nothingness may be characterized by my own experiences and perhaps a survival instinct, I also find the philosophical concept of a void disconcerting. Part of it is the fact that I cannot truly understand a void without relying on a mental image or regarding it as a 'thing', which is paradoxical.

Another part of it is similar to a concern that I have with certain axioms or fundamental definitions, for example why does 1 = 1? It seems intuitively obvious and perhaps the understanding is innate, but can a proof be constructed that 1=1? Given that all mathematical statements ought to be reducible to statements about natural numbers, I find it disconcerting that there seems to come a point where asking why leads to unresolvable metaphysical quandaries. It devote an unhealthy amount of time to this dilemma.

>>2842827
edit:
>about natural numbers *as a matter of modern guiding principle and nothing beyond that*

>>2842823
You can be absolutely certain that none other exist. It makes more sense when you consider that you do not know "your" consciousness fully. If you did, what would that mean?

>>2842796
I'm not sure I follow either. I don't see how it logically follows that if you accept the idea that you can only know one, that it logically follows that there only is one. Wouldn't it be more logical to say that given you can only be certain of your own existence, you cannot be certain of the existence of others?

>>2842844
That's the point of the interaction problem. Thinking is an action, experiencing is an action. Actions are change traveling through a medium and they can't "play favorites" as it were and be only accessible to one entity, because the act of being accessed by one entity, causes an observable change in that entity. There's a paper trail of cause and effect that points back to the original experience no matter what. Nothing anybody says, does, or thinks can be attributed to something that is beyond interaction.

>>2842220
He's right, once you're dead it's done so there is nothing to be afraid of, bleeding out for hours in pain with knowledge that this is the end of the road for you is something else entirely.

>>2842863
It may be true that nothing is beyond *interaction, but how does that prove an experience itself isn't unique onto itself and therefore inaccessible? If you and I observe an apple before us, then that experience is governed by our relative position to the apple, unique sense of the apple, our prior experience with apples, etc. Everything which is experienced is of a unique time and place and not directly accessible after it happens. You cannot occupy the same time and position as I had when I experienced observing the apple, therefore while it may NOT be beyond interaction in the sense that you have described, the experience is nonetheless inaccesible once it has elapsed and you can only experience what takes place after that experience has occurred. In this sense there must be inaccessible information, even to the original observer, because their own memory cannot conjure the exact time and place of the experience.

It is a private experience even to the person that had experienced it, therefore the interaction problem does not apply.

>>2842944
>>2842863
This is a very stimulating discourse btw, so you respond my post nigga.

>>2842944
That goes beyond the issue. The point is that there is no hard border between people.

>>2842974
But if I may reiterate, in that sense there is a hard border separated by time and place and I don't see how it follows that interaction proves that there are people beyond you. How can you be certain that you aren't contained in a universe where you are the only being and everything else is a fabrication made of matter but not what you sense it be? I'm not sure you can be even be absolutely certain that your existence and all your memories isn't a spontaneous occurrence, given that it is impossible for you to actually go back experience prior events.

>>2842305
This. Low IQ philosophers were just spouting random nonsense and people thought they were smart. Just take the usual "smart quote" formula and make it about farts. You can make farts sound smart that way.

>>2843004
Okay, what I meant to say is that the uncertainty in this subject is just no different than general uncertainty. Things don't become more uncertain when it comes to experience.

>>2843017
But do you not agree that there is then private experience because of a hard border separated by time and place, which makes an experience inaccessible, even to the person who experienced it prior and is only directly accessible in the moment it was experienced by the person who experienced it?

> Things don't become more uncertain when it comes to experience.
Wouldn't it be the though? How can you be uncertain of a thing, for which you have no knowledge or experience of. Isn't it true that you must have experienced something to be uncertain of it, otherwise being unknown?

>>2843017
Also, can you point me to your original post so I can follow this thread of conversation better? I'm getting a little lost, but I must say that I've enjoyed the conversation :p

>>2843043
The point is that knowing what another person experiences is no more uncertain than knowing anything else.

>>2842220
It is beautiful quote.

>>2843058
I see, though I feel somewhat remiss for leading us into an argument about general uncertainty when I was meaning to make an argument about the certainty of experiences being unique and not directly accessible and in this sense private. However, barring radical skepticism, I do agree that the interaction problem proves that experiences are in the least indirectly accessible and that private thoughts must also be indirectly inaccessible, in those sense they are not absolutely private, but nonetheless information must be lost in order to observe them in the first place.

>>2843058
>>2843107
Nigga, you better respond now, because you went thesis, I went antithesis, and if you agree then we just went full on synthesis with bitch. We had a thought baby that I'll probably find out someone had before...

>>2843107
I mean, private thoughts must be indirectly *accessible not inaccessible. sorry for the confusion.

Epicurus is my favourite philosopher. He is EPIC :D

>>2842305
>>2842374
>le maths XD

>>2843016
Are you implying that everything true about reality can be reduced to purely mathematical statements?

>>2842739
I what way is the concept of a soul self-contradictory? I don't see it myself.

>>2843220
It may be Anon is referring to the issue, that if the soul is supernatural and thus not inextricably linked to the body, then how does the soul effect the body and visa versa, if no tangible connections exist?

>>2842220
Nietzsche. Not even meming.

>>2843244
Surely this is only a problem to realists about the natural world? An anti-realist or non physical monist would have no problems. Also, this isn't exactly a self contradiction.

>>2843258
I was merely speculating. I'm not entirely sure how the concept of a soul itself is self-contradictory. Maybe if you define the soul as something thinking and yet outside of time, then that would be self-contradictory because thinking is a process, which must occur over time? Otherwise a soul would have to be static or the supernatural realm it exists in would have to have time.

File: stefan2.jpg (45KB, 1278x678px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1278x678px

all of them except for pic related