>tfw 108 iq brainlet, should i kill myself? No philosophy

>>9911579
i'm so sorry anon. it must be hard to be a brainlet. not that I would know anything about that.

let's kill ourselves together lad

>>9911610
you bet i spend whole fucking day solving this simple alghoritm
https://www.freecodecamp.org/challenges/diff-two-arrays



function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
var empty = [];
for (var i=0; i<arr2.length; i++) {

var firstOccurence = arr1.indexOf(arr2[i]);
if (firstOccurence === -1) {
empty.push(arr2[i]);
}
}
var empty2 = [];
for (var n=0;n<arr1.length;n++) {
var firstOccurenceInarr2 = arr2.indexOf(arr1[n]);
if (firstOccurenceInarr2 === -1) {
empty2.push(arr1[n]);}
}
return empty.concat(empty2);
}
diffArray(["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"], ["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"]);



i literally cant sleep i am so worried how stupid i am

File: 1491344203501.jpg (339KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1280x1024px

>tfw 127 iq brainlet

>>9911637
>well, I'm glad you're wasting your meager talents on STEM shit and not trying to understand the humanities, at least.

>>9911637
Are these supposed to be done in any language? Don't really like JavaScript that much

>>9911651
only javascript

>>9911579
When to kill yourself is a philosophical domain in of it self so I'm just going to assume that it is undesirable.

You could just fight your dislike of loud and stinky things.

>>9911637
add everything found in the first array, then remove anything found in the second.

>>9911637
Since you have to find unique elements, you're gonna have to read over everything once at least, seems like minimum runtime is O(n) where n is the total number of elements. If you add each element to a hash table as you read it, and then hash into it at constant speed wouldn't it just be O(n + n), which reduces to O(n) so do that for best speed?
Could well be wrong

>>9911681
what i posted is working, i mean maybe its not prettiest but its working
>>9911665
you mean
[code]
function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {

var array = arr1.concat(arr2);
if (arr1.length>arr2.length) {
return array.remove(arr2);
}
return array.remove(arr1);

}
diffArray(["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"], ["andesite", "grass", "dirt", "dead shrub"]);
[/code]
in theory its a good idea, but result is "array.remove is not function"

>>9911579
>>9911637
IQ really doesn't mean anything OP
I'm in a STEM major and I'm shit at CS so don't think your algorithm solutions are indicative of all your abilities
and remember, even if you're a self proclaimed smartie, it doesn't mean anything if you sit on your butt doing nothing. keep putting in effort and testing yourself and you'll get better

File: spurdo dance.gif (49KB, 69x120px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 69x120px

>>9911692
>>9911681
>>9911665
still waiting for your code, blease

>>9911692
yeah, you would have to use a double for loop, giving it an O(n^2), seemed easy in theory probably wasn't as obvious as I thought.
It's just some kind of compulsory response seeing a challenge.

>tfw 147 IQ
>learned programming at 13
>dropped out of CS because hated all the math
>killing it in philosophy

Man how are you guys so fucking bad at CS. Just hash the first array, then iterate over the second array hashing, removing any duplicates. The output is just the compacted hash table.

Two for loops and a .elements() call on the HT.

>>9911721
that gives the union not the difference

>>9911579
I'm a psych major and now and again I have to do IQ tests with people.
The most difficult part is always interpreting it with them. Quite often some subtests or even the mean are in the 90s.
It's really not significantly different from being in the 100s, but it's always like I just told them that they are mentally handicapped. Even when I test them against an academic sample, which means they are still above average.

I'm starting to develop the opinion that people shouldn't get to know their actual scores. Just their "ranking" via SD or something like that.

>>9911579

Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 and look how much he achieved in the field of physics, J.D. Salinger's was 104 and he was a beautiful writer. Don't be a defeatist.

Your ability to recognize numerical and visual patterns has little bearing on success when it comes to the humanities. If this is what you're interested in, work hard, read constantly, debate your ideas and learn from others. I've seen people worse than you excel.
t. 150 IQ English Lit major.

>>9911753
I really shouldn't say "worse than you," that's not correct and I apologize. You have the potential to do extremely well, many high IQ people waste their lives in a constant state of nihilism and self depreciation.

>>9911742
>physics
Irrelevant field.

IQ is psychobabble bullshit.

>>9911767
Did you score low?

Are you that faggot from /sci/ yesterday? Jesus, man, calm down.

>>9911767
Don't think you understand the definition of psychobabble there, bud.

what am I doing wrong?


function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
var newArr = [];
var concArr = arr1.concat(arr2);
var currItem;
var sliceArr;
var index;
for (var i=0; i<concArr.length;i++){
currItem = concArr[i];
sliceArr = concArr.slice(i+1, concArr.length+1);
index = sliceArr.indexOf(currItem);
if (index == -1)
newArr = newArr.concat(concArr[i]);

}
return newArr;
}

diffArray([1, 2, 3, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]);

>>9911702
What language? I'll do it in java if you don't answer >:)

>>9911717
Doing major in CS and minor in Philosophy, Philosophy honestly feels a lot like CS with less rigor. Both ultimately about abstract problem solving

>>9911637
>using javascript outside of web

you really are a brainlet

>>9911738
No you didn't read my description properly you mong. You remove elements when you find a collision. This is a literature board pls learn2read.

>>9911850
write curly bracet after if statement for once

>>9911579
Permission is bloodless
Ambition is senseless
Don't make a wrong move work with a purpose
You win or you lose
Imitate a slave
Don't make a wrong move learn from experience
Don't be useless
Waste is obscene don't make a wrong move
Learn from experience
Don't make a wrong move

>>9912001
is this peterson simulator

>>9912038
Might as well be.
https://youtu.be/t7Dp9WNgX08

>>9911579


Whats wrong with being slightly above average? Did you think that you were a special mesiah or something? You need confidence and work ethic my man. Work on your coding instead of whining about having slightly higher IQ than the average man.

nvm, I'm >>9911681
that was retarded, that wouldn't give

>>9911702
>>9911692

took me a whilte cause like this person >>9911902
says, I never use js outside web dev (mostly react). What a dumb language

I think it runs optimally, which is (O(2n)), which I wrote at the bottom of the pic. It's assuming that the inbuilt js function .hasOwnProperty hashes into the object at constant time (which I'm pretty sure it does (although again, dont really know much about js, as it is a dumb language)).
Lmk if anyone can think of a faster way of doing it

File: js is dumb.png (52KB, 435x733px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 435x733px

>>9912079
whoops, forgot solution

>>9911579
Also OP, the fact that you're listening to JP in the first place is pretty stupid.

However, just because your IQ isn't high, it doesn't mean you can't do CS. CS honestly isn't that hard, except for the rigorous math. If you actually think CS is reasonably fun, or think problem solving is fun than you can do it if you make yourself sit down and practice and work through fun practice problems like the symmetric differences array problem posted somewhere above

File: hitler.png (731KB, 1177x896px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1177x896px

>>9911850
>what am I doing wrong?
not posting it in code tags for one. oh wait, we're not on /g/. you know what you should do then

>>9911739
yeah that makes sense

>>9911753
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.100.1.101-108
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/512011
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9408796
just three random articles. there's a lot more

>>9911742
this. intelligence is obviously far from being the only important factor when it comes to success in any field

>>9911767
nah

>>9912079
>It's assuming that the inbuilt js function .hasOwnProperty hashes into the object at constant time (which I'm pretty sure it does (although again, dont really know much about js, as it is a dumb language))
that's implementation-dependent of course, but we can safely assume O(1). JS is not that dumb. it's just a bit quirky. with typescript it actually becomes pleasant to use

>>9911765
terrible bait.

>>9911891
idk my formal logic class was pretty hard. like half the class dropped

but yeah the rest of it's pretty straightforward. philosophy being classified as in the humanities is pretty dumb to me. i'm just saying i've bullshitted my way through english papers before, but you can't really bullshit your way through a philosophy paper (if you have a good professor)

>>9911835
Higher than you; still trash.
>>9911845
I do, bud. Go shove a brick up your ass, bud.
>>9912114
It is, psychology, like all 'science' is for idiots.
>>9912124
>anything i dont like is le bait

>>9912453
'formal logic' is bad philosophy. Half the class realized that.
Furthermore, one cannot 'bullshit through English papers' unless you have a just-out-of-school tumblrcunt of a teacher.
Only the worst of a field can be called a 'humanity' because the worst of everything is inherently is humanist. The sick ideology is so massly popular that it is a determiner of merit.

>>9911959
then you got to do a comparison with every element already in the hash increasing the complexion

>>9911579
>tfw 128 IQ white male with an incredible hatred of genre fiction

Casual reminder if you read genre fiction your skin colour is that of shit or you're a woman which is basically the same thing intelligence-wise.

>>9912468
>'formal logic' is bad philosophy. Half the class realized that.
ah, the "analytic philosophy is bad" meme. never understood it

>one cannot 'bullshit through English papers' unless you have a just-out-of-school tumblrcunt of a teacher

fair enough, i only took intro level english classes and encountered a fair amount of them.

>>9912532
You never understood it because you're a teenager and are incapable of anything but hero-worship. You wouldn't think anything is wrong if they were fucking you in the ass, either.

I'm nearly 30 and am published. I've received Bs on all of my English papers so far, despite spending at least two dozen hours on all of them. These were all intro-level English courses and ~6 page papers, and one sonnet. Incredible pains went into writing and refining. It's not a reflection of the field as a whole that dumbasses will enable dumbasses like you, it's a reflection of the poor state of so many American universities.

File: the-fox-and-the-grapes.png (226KB, 1164x962px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1164x962px

>>9912532
> never understood it
It's a rhetorical statement, but I'm going to respond anyway. Picture explains it.

>>9912558
>it's a reflection of the poor state of so many American universities.
sure. that makes sense. all i can really claim is that the philosophy department at my school is better than the english department

now explain why analytic philosophy is bad without resorting to ad hominem

>>9912560
elaborate.

>>9912572
>ad hominem is bad
Explain this nonlogically or refrain from using loaded terms.

>>9912580
attacking the character or motives of people who were involved in analytic philosophy (or the people who study it) without explaining why the methodology itself is wrong is retarded

>>9912579
can't really without this devolving into a shitstorm, but I guess, why not:
Most big problems in continental philosophy disappear when using reductionist methods. And the common critique of reductionist methods is that it doesn't feel right.

Gives the impression of not "getting it".

>>9912611
>Most big problems in continental philosophy disappear when using reductionist methods.
But that's an entirely different school, how is that relevant here?

If you want to critique logical positivism or something then just do it, why can no one fucking give a straight answer when I ask that question on this board? Have you even read any analytic philosophy?

File: 1503093825352.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>tfw under 150 iq brainlet

>>9912591
That's not an explanation, that's you calling somebody you dislike retarded.
The notion that methodology alone is subject for critique is a begging of the question. Those of value and taste also ought to be remembered. But to target all three: analytic 'philosophy' follows the traditions of the worst philosophers, making their same mistakes, and making a whole bucket of mistakes based on the same old assumptions. Imagine a man in the night, in a flat field that spans beyond where the horizon would be if it were day, and always is beyond the horizon. Is it fair to say that he is 'moving forward' simply because he is moving? Perhaps there is a way out somewhere, but how can he find it in the night, or even know where he is in reference?
Secondly, the 'philosophy' itself stinks of incredible pretense, moth balls, and Earl Grey. Analytic 'philosophy' is nothing more than a load of *nglos upset that they don't have an empire anymore. And, despite claims, Am*rica is the ideological child of Br*tian.
Finally, I've never seen a person interested in the subject that wasn't a STEM reject. Somehow, these turds couldn't even make it among the Big School of functioning retards and dull foreigners.
>>9912611
Reductionism is invalid because it inherently perverts. You aren't 'reducing' like you would water, where whether it is a half-cup of water or a full-cup, it is still water. You reduce like a sweet sauce, where it begins complex, but as it reduces, it burns. Then, you spiteful *nglos have the gonads to claim that you're correct.

>>9912626
continental philosophers makes the "analytical philosophy is bad" meme.

In my experience they do it because they don't get it.

I tried to explain the origin of the meme.

>>9912641
>they dont get it because i said so but i get that le stupid SJW philosophy is LE BAD because im LE SMART

>>9912641
i thought you were the other guy and were somehow arguing that analytic philosophers don't get continental philosophy.

i'm just confused because i haven't really red a substantial critique of analytic philosophy in the same way i've read critiques of continental philosophers. peter unger is the only one i know of that really has attempted to critique it

on this board it's just retards like >>9912631
saying that it's bad because its full of LE STEM virgins or something

>>9912654
>I DONT LIKE WHAT YOUR POSTING SO YOUR LE RETARD HAHA
Fuck off you illiterate twat. I explained, several ways, now either shut your barely-adolescent ass or handle it.
'formal logic' my ass.

>>9912631
reductionist response:
and continentals are invalid because it inherently perverts. You aren't 'responding' like you would logically, where one statement is the result of the previous one and it's still the same argument. you respond as you do metaphorically, where your critique is valid, but it lacks connection to the original problem.

The way analytical philosophy tries to rebuild the world is from the bottom up. You get one thing in order consistently and then you build complexity on a solid foundation, rather then get indefinitely stuck on the same problem because you're compelled to face it all head on all the time.

>>9912672
>logic is good because i said so
So this is the power of autism...
>the bottom up
Why is this correct?
>uses a metaphor to explain
Oh, you're just an idiot. No wonder you cling to a lame rehash of enl*ghtenment 'philosophy' but with modernism.
>solid foundation
Prove your axioms with a stronger foundation: using nonlogic and noncontingence. No assumptions, or I'm getting my katana.

hi i'm 73 IQ

>>9912684
are you questioning logic?

>>9912684
>strong foundation
<will probably resort to 'muh empirical evidence' (dealing with the problem 'head-on') or some variation of that
>>9912691
DID YOU JUST ASK ME TO JUSTIFY MYSELF YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE? ITS A STRONG FOUNDATION I DONT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING YOU FUCKING CISSY

>>9912667
you are clearly a fucking retard who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. feel free to stop replying any time. maybe use the time to actually read some of the works you're shitposting about

File: 1486170705450.jpg (10KB, 295x378px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 295x378px

>>9912684
>>logic is good because i said so
>So this is the power of autism...

an entire school of philosophy taken down by an anon on 4chan. incredible

>>9912709
>IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THEN YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD WHO CLEARLY HASNT READ THESE BOOKS
Stop advertising your propaganda, faggot.
READ THE POST, I EVEN INCLUDED A PREFACE, YOU SPERGS LOVE THAT
Oh but wait that means actually putting an effort into reading instead of engaging in a nodding-fest. Hmm... yes... I... agree... logic is self-evident... YES.S...

Child, you're attacking the form and image of my arguments instead of their content. Doesn't that sound like something that you criticized earlier? Oh wait, that means being logically consistent instead of clinging to an image of 'le smart Logic and Reason Man [with a big cock]'! Can't actually believe things, now, that means putting an effort in!

>>9912720
Still no argument. Do you sincerely believe yourself to be 'logical', when you cannot even defend logic, or rebute? My katana, Ōkinakuroiinkei, is almost ready. You must hurry!

>>9912724
>Child, you're attacking the form and image of my arguments instead of their content. Doesn't that sound like something that you criticized earlier?
yeah it does, i've clearly given up on having an actually argument with you since you don't want to have an argument. so i just defaulted to ad hominem (which is the only thing you've done the entire time)

>HURR YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY LOGIC SO THEREFORE WE SHOULD DO WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT AND ANYTHING GOES

and you're claiming analytic philosophy is bad, jesus

tell me why modus ponens is justified

>>9912741
isn't justified***

>>9912741
>BLAHBLAHBLAH I DONT HAVE TO ARGUE EVEN THOUGH I CLAIM TO STAND FOR THIS
Justify your 'strong foundations' or go back to /r/eddit
>modus ponens
Because my ponens is modus. Prepare yourself.
Either justify yourself or actually start reading the texts you've claimed you've read (and something fucking contemporary). Why do you children get so upset when somebody is critical of your nonsense? Because that means doing more than head-nodding? Lazy *nglo.

MARGARET, GET THE EARL GREY.

>>9912753
>>Because my ponens is modus. Prepare yourself.
okay it was bait the entire time, thank god.

you're still a fucking retard though, and just saying that something is wrong isn't an argument. kill yourself

also realize that you're literally saying math itself is wrong if you can't accept certain axioms. the law of self identity is literally fundamental to math
if you genuinely think that we can't conclude from "if two things are equal to the same then they are equal to each other" and "the two sides of this triangle are equal to the same" that "the two sides of this triangle are equal to each other" then you're literally retarded and so is anyone who writes off logic. there has to be a point where you can't continue justifying or else there would be an infinite regress

>>9912740
I guess I'll bite. It's a leap of faith, I agree, but without logic there is no way to discuss anything. Without logic every measure of less or more correctness disappear.

>>9911717
How can you have 147 IQ, like analytical philosophy and dislike maths? Maths is pure logic.

>>9912774
>anything that i dislike formally is just le meme!
Fuck off. Is this what you idiots call 'rigour'? Holy fucking shit.
I'm not making an argument, you haven't made an argument. Until then you're getting the fucking tip of anarchism right up your asshole.

Stop fucking ranting about how I DARE CRITICIZE LOGIC AND REASONS, THE FOUNDAAAAAAAAAAATIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION! THE GREAT GIFTS OF GREECE AND ROME!
Stop rejecting the conclusions of your ideology. Either go balls-fucking-deep or don't try at all. You claimed you have 'strong foundations', now present them or fuck off.
>>9912776
>I MUST BE CORRECT
Actual autism, right here. Refusal to admit one's limitations. Just admit what you already know: that all truth-judgements are value-judgements. There are ways to discuss without resorting to sickeningly Newtonian logic. You idiots call yourself 'modern' but are stuck in the same traps that 'philosophers' have been falling into for thousands of years.
No, you will not escape it with 'muh strong foundations' if you cannot even justify your foundations. Refer to my first allegory, about the man in the night, in the flat field.
>>9912787
Both are trash mate. Math is pure ideological logic. Pure nonsense.

>>9912787
I study mostly continental philosophy.

File: 1490679458748.jpg (28KB, 500x385px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x385px

>>9912795
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

i just posted an entire extremely specific response as to why it's genuinely retarded to not "believe" in logic. you responded with more ad hominem and "CHECK OUT MY METAPHOR BRO"
your fucking metaphor is meaningless. engage in the argument or fuck off

>Math is pure idological logic

holy fuck this has to be bait

>>9912795
>Math is pure ideological logic. Pure nonsense.
I'm not used to /lit/ shitposting. How can you believe something so impactful for humanity to be nonsense?

>>9912812
>I CANT READ SO YOUR DUMB
Are you ESL?
>it's meaningless
Because you have actual autism.
Your 'response' was a nonresponse, demanding that I first assume your position. You're an upset child. There is no argument here, just a little boy (you) flailing over me not giving you your racecars. ZROOM ZROOM! TIME TO ABANDON GR**K LOGIC!
>holy fuck this has to be bait
Yes, clearly anybody that disagrees with you in any radical way is just baiting you. HOW DARE ANYBODY STRAY FROM MY FORMULA. ZROOM ZROOM I ACCELERATE IN REVERSE!

>>9912795
There's quite the difference between Newtonian logic and logic all together. I'm quite the critic of Newtonian world view myself, or rather the Newtonian world view as the only possible one.

I think your allegory of the man in the night was accurate.

effeminate man are drawn to continental "philosophy" like flies, because it lacks rigor, rationality, and is built upon meandering, captivating prose, appeals to emotion and cults of personality: it's like poetry, but it doesn't rhyme
masculine men choose the analytical tradition

>>9912822
>>9912795
your ohh great metaphor is retelling of plato's cave made by "foundation" you hate so much

>>9912819
>muh utility
Fuck off

>>9912877
Fuck you, pretentious prick.

>>9912825
Your logic is Newtonian logic, all logic is.
>>9912833
>IM A REEEEEEEEEEEEL MAN LOL XD
You're an impotent teenager. You lack rigour and rationality. You cannot even defend your methodology.
>>9912858
It's not a retelling, it's a 'thought experiment'. Don't you spergs love that stuff?

>>9912883
'muh utility' is pretentious. Mathematics is 'impactful to humanity' in the same way that a nuclear bomb is to a city.

>>9912888
nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger bad analogy nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

>>9912888
>>9912877
>>9912819

>implying maths is ''useful''

The reason that it's a science, and beautiful and worth pursuing, is that the study of maths, like the study of philosophy, is an end in itself and not necessarily practical.

>>9912911
Oh look, a whole load of ideology. Bury your wig already, Charles.

>>9912911
>The reason that it's a science, and beautiful and worth pursuing, is that the study of maths, like the study of philosophy, is an end in itself and not necessarily practical.
Which I don't deny. I was only making a point to why maths isn't nonsense, which is a ridiculous claim in itself.

>>9912903
Kevin McDonald thinks you should call people Jews instead of niggers. Thank you for your attention to Kevin McDonald's thoughts on this matter.

>>9912922
Nigger.

>>9912886
> all logic is newtonian
> your logic is logic is as well.
> therefore your logic is newtonian


No it's not, Newtonian logic have a set of axioms, connected to empirism which all logic, part of which you used to refuse me with, don't share.

>>9912921
Don't speak for me, whore.
>>9912927
Are you fucking illiterate? I said Newtonian logic, not Newtonian Logic. Your logic is Newtonian, your logic is not Newtonian Logic. Do the autistic have difficulties discerning the difference between?

>>9912917
...what does he mean by this...

>>9912921
I know. That guy is high on his own farts, like all of us on /lit/.

>>9912924
Come on Anon, listen to Kevin McDonald. It's very important that you do, ok?

>>9912927
>>9912931
Ok but have you heard about Kevin McDonaldian Logic?

>>9912933
Are you illiterate?

>>9912931
wat

>>9912931
Go fuck yourself, cunt.

>>9912934
Kevin Mcfuckyoass? Niger.

File: 1426285841358.jpg (502KB, 900x1176px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 900x1176px

Don't do it anon. I have a brainlet IQ and I'm in a Phd program.

Dedication will often get you farther than lazy IQ faggots.

>>9912938
Not literally, but I agree with you on analytic philosophy. In what sense is math ideological though?

There is no discourse, right or wrong, or even meaning if you don't accept, at the very least, the tenets of aristotelian logic
why are you feeding this troll so much (you)s?

>>9911579
I have a high IQ and I've literally achieved nothing.
I would trade 10 IQ points for a stronger work ethic in a second, and I'm on the low end of the high IQ spectrum.

>>9913019
The field of philosophy is riddled with logic denying continentals, I'm curious about what makes them tick.

>>9913033
read outliers by malcolm gladwell.
It's only 150 pages plus 50 of references and mostly just stuff you already know but it's helpful.

>>9913019
>this is what ideologues actually believe
>ANYBODY I DONT LIKE IS LE TROLL
>>9913034
Prove it exists or eat shit. Strong foundations my ass, I've seen dust withstand greater storms.

>>9913047
Try saying anything that has any meaning whatsoever meanwhile contradicting any of the three laws of thought
You literally can't

>>9913052
You're applying logic right now, presupposing it. How pathetic, is this the TRUE power of brainlets?

>>9913055
It's a challenge, the same challenge the 'totle did to the sophist brainlets. Your whole diatribe would be impossible outside the premises of aristotelian logic. There's no discourse outside of it
if there is, then say ANYTHING meaningful that doesn't rely on logic at some level to be communicated

>>9913063
>a challenge
No, brainlet, you're still presupposing. Try again, brainlet, at least try to act according to your own ideology.
By the way, 'Aristotlean logic' began way before Aristotle.
'discourse' is disgusting.

>>9913071
I accept your concession

>>9913071
Let me put this in brainlet terms using your brainlet 'logic' so that you can understand
>LOGIC EXISTS, ERGO THERE IS LOGIC
So this is the power of science...
>>9913076
Not a concession, brainlet, we're still dining.

>>9913079
then show me what lies outside logic
try saying ANYTHING that has any meaning without pressuposing logic to some degree
otherwise I will stop replying and accept your concession

>>9913084
You're still presupposing it exists, brainlet.

I'm not supposing logic right now, it does not exist. Being tricked into systematics doesn't mean those systems exist, brainlet.

>>9913084
>please make a logical statement
Sorry, brainlet, not falling for that one!
I make value-statements.

>>9911647
>tfw your iq is really 127 but you always tell people 130

>>9911579
do it

>>9911579
>tfw 140 iq but feel like a retard all time thinking about what geniuses like Einstein accomplished at my age
feelsbadman

bear with me my dudes, but what is this discussion between the analytical dude and the continental dude ITT? I don't understand the content of this debate

am I a brainlet?

test

>>9912694
Logic is objectively useful. I say objectively because it is the school of thought that science and therefore all material comforts if the modern age are built upon. You can question the value of these material comforts, but do so without using your phone or computer or electricity or internet connection

>>9914395
analytic and continental philosophy are two different branches of philosophy, often sort of thought to be different (although they clearly share some of the same tenets)

continental philosophy (with people like Marx, Hegel, and Heidegger) is often characterized by less of a focus on formal logic and science and more of a focus on human experience and historical context.

analytic philosophy (which dominate most colleges and universities today) aligns itself more with the scientific world and the people involved in the field often do work in math or other sciences as well. there is a much greater emphasis on logic, precision, and rigor. analytic philosophers created a system of formal logic to represent arguments in a more "mathematical form". thinkers included people like Russell, Frege, and Wittgenstein. often people in this school criticized continental philosophers for what they saw as a lack of logical rigor.

in this thread, it's really just contrarianism towards analytic philosophy and a hatred of STEM subjects in general. not that continental philosophy isn't important (in a way), but formal logic literally was instrumental in creating computers and many other pieces of technology we have today. logic gates were taken directly from formal logic

>>9914530
I know what the two "branches" of philosophy are, what is not clear is what was being discussed in this particular argument

it seems like it touched base on newton, semiotics, fedoric STEMbabble, and a bunch of other things

File: khg.jpg (55KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x810px

>>9914530
>studied phil for a year at a German uni
>profs specializing in conti phil punching out books with shitty reviews every four years and forcing students to buy them
>profs specializing in analytic phil and philosophy of science don't
>ask one of them why he has so few books
>"Well, I'm working on one, but I'm caught up in this interdisciplinary research project on AI based simulations. And working in the industry is better money anyway. lol Just download my powerpoints, that's basically the book anyway."

>>9914744
the continental philosophy dude was spouting gibberish the entire time. i have no clue what his point was because he wasn't making an actual argument

also don't put "branches" in quotes like an asshole. they are branches or traditions in philosophy, and they definitely aren't the only two

>>9914530
is there chance to follow both branches and yet find time for javascript??

>>9915255
you'll be mediocre at all of them

>>9911753
This is what I am afraid of and I am not really a genius.

>>9912513
You'll be surprised when you realized who are the ones buying genre fiction.

>finally take a legitimate iq test
>score within the top 0.01% in regards to spatial intelligence.
>iterally just stay home all day absorbing media, creating nothing.

>>9911579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwL449AMHMo

>>9915430
are those just meme, or truly geniuses have haunted /lit/??

>>9911579
Focus on getting yourself out of debt, traveling, and cultivating your garden. You don't have to be a suave intellectual to live a good life. A trade job is not a bad route. If you have money in the bank and a decent refinement of manners, you can go very far. Your life doesn't have to hinge on an IQ test; nor does your value to society.

There are plenty of brainy motherfuckers who are going to debt slaves for the rest of their lives because of how they're going about things. I wouldn't necessarily say they are making smart decisions although a test would label them as inherently smart. You can still live a really good life.

>>9915579
A genius accomplishes something

This is why IQ is a pointless test, as some geniuses have average IQs and many high IQ people achieve nothing that would qualify them as a genius

In regards to your post there are maybe one or two geniuses who temporarily browsed /lit/ at most