Why do the works of George Berkeley, Spinoza, Leibniz, and other

>>9365876
Probably because you're fucking retarded. Just a hunch though

>>9365876
George Berkeley A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

16. But let us examine a little the received opinion. It is said extension is a mode or accident of matter, and that matter is the substratum that supports it. Now I desire that you would explain what is meant by matter's supporting extension; you say, i have no idea of matter and, therefore, cannot explain it. I answer, though you have no positive, yet if you have any meaning at all, you must at least have a relative idea of matter; though you do not know what it is, yet you must be supposed to know what relation it bears to accidents, and what is meant by its supporting them. It is evident support cannot here be taken in its usual or literal sense, as when we say that pillars support a building; in what sense therefore must be taken?"

Like... Do you guys find that this prose is good because it is good, or that it is good because academia has a consensus that its good?

It really is no wonder why Philosophy in general is shit on.

t. philosophy major

File: 13875752.jpg (37KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 360x360px

>>9365887
>calls me retarded because I can't take seriously the works of 17th and 18th century philosophers

>>9365918
Leibniz's ideas were and continue to be enormously influential, creating and utilizing concepts that are still used in logic, physics and philosophy today (possible worlds, identity of indiscernibles, relational interpretation of space). Spinoza was right about teleology. Berkeley presented an insurmountable challenge to the empiricist project on (par with Hume's induction) as it was then construed and continues to find support today, especially in light of modern developments in physics. I think you're just stupid

>>9365938
>>9365938
are you being serious?

all of there works have been argued against and have been proven wrong. Sure, some of them have had some good ideas that "influenced" "logic, physics, and philosophy."

and no shit it influenced philosophy.

Spinoza's Teleology argument is just a tautology.

>Berkeley presented a insurmountalbe challenge to the empiricist project

maybe you're the retarded one, modern-day science kind shits on most of their works.

Sometimes I forget that this board is full of Christians.

>>9365987
>all of there works have been argued against and have been proven wrong.

Can you point to the arguments that proved their works wrong?

>>9365995
literally google, "objections to [insert philosopher]'s [his philosophy]"

can you point me to modern day works/developments that have been influenced by Spinoza and Berkeley?

>>9366024

But that works for any philosopher or philosophy

>>9366024
So what you're saying is you have no original thought of your own, can't point to any decisive refutations of these philosophers, and are essentially speaking out of your ass with your misunderstanding of the relationship between science and philosophy.

You are in fact retarded.

>>9366031
But what about Berkeleys influences on modern day physics?

I know you're a Christian that wants more validation from philosophers like Berkeley and the other Rationalists, but cmon.

>>9366039
>implying any original refutation I come up with is original
>can't point to any decisive works in modern day science that have been influenced by the works of Berkeley, Spinoza, and the other 17th and 18th philosophers (except maybe Leibniz)
>and implying that modern day science has a relationship with philosophy

>is there a relationship between philosophy and science because philosophy, alone, believes it has a relationship with science?

Philosophy today just lags behind the developments of modern day science.

>please more ad homs

>>9365987
Monadology comes up to a surprising extent in political philosophy and critical theory. Most no longer use it literally but rather to explain the figurative relationship between ideas and other conceptual components.

>>9365876
You take the assumptions that ground today's understanding of the world for granted.

>>9366063
Wasn't the goal for the Rationalists to find Certainty through the intellect alone? Can you tell me if they achieved that goal?

>>9366056
Everything you've said is categorically false and just belies your ignorance of the current situation in contemporary philosophy AND physics. Ever hear of the philosophy of physics? All physicists are aware of the conceptual and philosophical issues at the foundations of their work, whether that be relativity, statistical mechanics or quantum mechanics. Some choose not to take that on that baggage but many others have and there is a wide ranging literature devoted to the philosophical interpretation of physical theories, with physicists AND philosophers contributing. Something a moron like you wouldn't be aware of.

For instance, one interpretation of the Bell correlations revealed by Bell experiments is the abandonment of a weak formulation of realism called counterfactual definiteness. For some, this is a vindication of Berkeley's extreme idealism. Obviously this is still a matter of interpretation but the mere act of interpreting quantum mechanics is a major area of study in contemporary philosophy of physics. There is no "lagging being modern day science" because philosophy and science are not in opposition, they are complementary.

>>9366070
Yes.
No, they got mauled by Kant and the rise of empiricism.

>>9366079
When did you become aware of the philosophy of physics?

>>9366108
When I decided it was time to stop reading the idiotic circle jerk that is this literature board and start reading books.

File: Cornvelious_Daniel (1).png (382KB, 1000x719px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1000x719px

>>9366120
recommend me some books.

>>9366128
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics - Lange
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem - Cushing and McMullin
The Deep Metaphysics of Space: An Alternate History and Ontology beyond Substantivalism and Relationism - Slowik
The Road to Maxwell's Demon: Conceptual Foundations of Statistical Mechanics - Hemmo and Shenker

These are essentially introductions to some of the philosophical problems plaguing the special sciences. The bibliography is vast and the rabbit hole only goes deeper. I'd also check out Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 Years of Bell's Theorem for some easier discussion on the relevance of Berkeley to the current realism debate

>>9366159
>>9366159
Thanks, and i really am retarded.

>>9365876
this is a troll thread

>>9365876
Probably cause you're dumb.

>>9365903
he literally rewrote this work as three dialogues

>>9366056
>Berkeley and the other Rationalists
>Berkeley
>rationalist

>>9366024
Deleuze was heavily influenced by Spinoza, and his work is used in IDF military operations