Serious question: What place does philosophy have in our increasingly

>>8330104
>hurr durr muh objectively correct factual outlook

atheism and all other beliefs that pull this "its just so explained bro" schlick are intellectually lazy

>>8330106
>atheism
8/8 m8

in b4
>260 replies and 34 images omitted. Click here to view.

>>8330106
>Schlick
>literally explaining the world every day using a method pioneered by an early philosopher
Sure, philosophy was like the cocoon that kept science warm through human infancy, but here we are now.

The better part of two centuries of it has been about examining the nature of "explanation," "rationalisation" and what it means for life, morality, personhood.

Romanticism tries to save irrationalism as the seat of human meaning, existentialism and existential phenomenology try to overcome the sterility of instrumentalizing the lived-in-world by emphasising its lived-inness and the necessity of contingency for meaningful human freedom and choice, hermeneutics constantly emphasises dialogic, intersubjective meanings that inherently can't ever be rooted in a foundationalist rationalism or "explained," but have to be lived and experienced first-person.

On top of that, if you don't reject "world-explaining" as a major aspect of life (and few do), and especially if you make it a primary aspect, philosophy is doing most of the behind-the-scenes work hashing out how exactly explanation functions. For all the pop culture memes about philosophy being navel-gazing, the actual argumentative bases on which those memes rest are the result of centuries of careful work by philosophers. If you give up the attempt to rationally justify your stance - including your stance ON "the rational justification of stances" - you just become subject to the white noise of memes, flawed, derivative, ideological debris that underlies your whole worldview while making you think you came up with it yourself. Science demands not just a philosophy of science but a history of science and a critical history of the philosophy of science.

A good example of ideological debris, and a good way of talking about the ethical dimension of "living in an explained world," is the implicit Whiggishness of scientism. Just being taught about scientific whiggishness, a little dash of relativism, is a heuristic that helps you avoid major intellectual and ethical pitfalls. Most scientists are running on a vague soup of shockingly naive epistemological axioms, without realising that some of these exact views caused major historical cul-de-sacs in science, atrocities, and probably deep ongoing problems in our society (like how most scientists are just groomed to be slaves of capitalist industry).

Also, philosophy has not been the minor sideline that most people seem to think it has been in the 20th century, and it's not as nambypamby as people think it is. When most people think of recent philosophy they just think of two talking points about Sartre. They're just ignorant of the ridiculous influence of philosophy in intellectual culture and policymaking. Social work requires social theory which requires methodologies directly adapted e.g. from existential hermeneutics or from anthropology programmes themselves derived from philosophical programmes.

>>8330104
>explained world
Mechanically. And even then, quantum physics is sort of "we just don't know lel" territory. Also all explanations not concerning materially observable and measurable phenomena are influenced by presuppositions and the limits of the senses, if you ever meet a scientist more interested in saying the truth than tipping fedoras you'll hear something along these lines from them as well.

>>8330104
The world was also explained by edgy atheists 200 years ago knoblet.

>>8330130
Thanks for this post.

>>8330293
Good luck in your essay.

>>8330130
Are you German? Writing style feels like reading Schoppy or Neeshe translated

>>8330130
Very well put. I'm saving this post as it covers a lot of things that I struggle to articulate in my day to day life.

File: brodoyouevenliveauthentically.jpg (89KB, 600x710px)

89KB, 600x710px

>>8330130
>this post

>>8330130
Excellent post.

It's a hobby.

>>8330130
This communicated nothing to me. Help

File: CVYvdtFWUAEgKZG.jpg (82KB, 600x523px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x523px

>>8330130
I'm kind of surprised someone took the effort to actually answer such an ignorant question.