Philosophy General

File: philosoraptor.jpg (12KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 160x160px

OP here with a bump.

This is an opportunity for anyone here to share what's on their mind and really have a decent discussion about it, without all the BS that you might get if you share it elsewhere. Just saying.

Western philosophy is thinking about thinking, so unsusable

Eastern philosophies (and World-philosophies) emphasize the need to think instead about living.

Now I know you say that Western thought is all about applying as well. But it is all about applying what you *think* into reality. You do this because you think it's best. You have thought up the best way of living, so you follow this thought into your life.

Philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and some new age (but definitely not all of them) are mostly about doing it the other way: letting nature/God/the Universe influence your thought instead.

I guess it's all about whether you believe Man is perfect as he is. Whether you believe that Man's thought (your own) is better than the rest of the Universe.

Is it really?
(also I'm here to discuss and debate and share)

>>36076982

I think you're oversimplifying it. Many western philosophers believe that the happenings in the universe, including the thoughts and actions of mankind, are the products of God/nature.

Have you read much of Spinoza? You might find his work really interesting.

I invite you and everyone here to watch this lecture on Spinoza and Leibniz. I haven't seen this particular one yet, so it's new for me too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmbGbo-oyKc

I'm a brainlet so please bear with me guise. Dunno if this is the right place to ask,

Can someone please explain buddhism to me. In a clear and consice way, like for dummies. Any buddhists on here?

>>36077092

It seems that this lecture, while interesting is very long--maybe too long for the purposes of this thread.

Here is a shorter summary of Spinoza's conception of God and the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pheHVGvDw2I

>>36076829
i believe god has abandoned me
i feel angry, regretful, and ashamed most of the time
i want to destroy every good thing i come across
i don't understand why i can't get any help from god.
i feel lost
i want to spite the world by killing myself

>>36077294

Keep in mind, I'm no expert on the subject.

However, I do know that there are a lot of different strains of Buddhism, and they all have some different beliefs, but mostly they share some core premises.

Do you know the story of Siddharta Gautama and how he came to be the Buddha? That's a good place we can start at at.

>>36077343

I'm sorry you're hurting so bad. What happened?

You don't have to go into the whole thing...just the basics of what's bothering you so much.

File: freddy-kun.jpg (498KB, 701x1024px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 701x1024px

stop feeling resentment

>>36077294
Their teachings or the religion? Do you want me to explain what the Buddha wanted you to know or who the Buddha is?

>>36077347
I do not know that story, no. Go ahead and tell me so we can bump this great thread.

Just some information on me, i was actually raised catholic but leaned more towards agnostic but lately ive been looking into buddhism. Not really as a religion or alternative to ut but more as a different perspective in things.

>inb4 hurrdurr religious people are stupid

>>36076978
What's on your mind OP? Have anything you feel strongly about?

>>36077401
I guess tell me who he was first. Then what he wanted.

I live with a family that identifies as "shinto" but i dont think that has anything to do with buddhism but i could be wrong. Im still sort of agnostic but just the little tidbits of info ive heard on buffhism makes me super interested to learn more

>>36077415
I suggest you read Herman Hesse's Siddharta.

It's a short novel that deals with Buddhism on a very indirect level.

After knowing the very basics (start with the 4 Noble Truths (google)) of Buddhism read the book and then you'll likely have a very good understanding of Buddhism. It's also very enjoyable.

>>36077489
Thanks anon. I'll do just that. I hope you have a great day.

Read The Ego and Its Own by Max Stirner to experience something great.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

>>36077469
Also this is me as well >>36077489. I replied to your other post, not the other dude you were replying to

According to what I know about Buddhism,
Buddha is a title given to a supremely realized person. The Buddha you know is commonly called Siddharta Gautama, he is the last one but not the only one.
You can easily google for the general story about the man.
And what he teaches are just general guidelines on how to live without suffering.

Also, the Buddha never directly taught about God or anything else spiritual. Any Buddhism (as a religion) beliefs involving spiritual concepts have been merged with other religions.
Not saying that is right or wrong, it's just information on the Buddha.

Does this answer some of your questions on Buddhism? I don't knoe what else to explain, do you have other specific questions?

File: hey kids.png (35KB, 705x455px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 705x455px

Slayer man...

>>36077639

Take a look at this, too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEe8hI6G0GY

>>36077667
Is slayer philosophical? The lyrics certainly paint some dark imagery. Lots of satanism and antisemetism implied

>>36077654

I don't think Gautama Buddha is supposed to be the last Buddha, actually. At least not in all traditions.

Check this out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

>>36077742

Can you give us some examples?

>>36077379
everyone is just better than me at everything
i feel dead inside
i feel cursed
i can't bring myself to pray
i just wanted to be a hero
i swear that's all i wanted. i even prayed it when i was a kid
it seems like i'll never be a person worth anything
i hate myself for being so useless

>>36077749
I didn't mean the last one, sorry. I meant the latest.

>>36077439

A big part of what compelled me to create this thread was the fact that a while ago, I was in a discussion on another board. I shared some information with someone who was mistaken about some things, and they got upset about it and ridiculed me for having shared this new information with them.

This was frustrating for me, because I feel like there is a pervasive current that flows among human beings (maybe all of us from time to time, but more with some people than others) where they are perfectly willing to talk about their own perspective on something, but if you disagree and explain why, they don't want to hear it and in fact get angry.

It makes me feel like they aren't really interested in a discussion, or learning about the world or anything in it--but rather, they are just sort of setting a trap for people to fall into and then ridicule those people. Maybe sometimes they're doing this subconsciously, but other times I do think there is real malice behind it.

I've experienced this in my life on a lot of occasions, and it is frustrating. And not just on the Internet--this happens in "meatspace" as well.

By now I'm used to it, and I certainly don't get too upset about it, but it is a problem and I do think it's a problem that affects the whole of society for the worse. It's sort of like anti-intellectualism of a very destructive type, and I feel it's something that needs to be addressed.

>>36076829
Is Alan Watts a bad philosopher?

>>36077869
alan watts isn't even a philosopher

>>36077785

>everyone is just better than me at everything

You know, though, that literally that isn't true. Everyone has some good qualities about them, somehow.

You can write, for example. That alone puts you ahead in at least that respect from many other people, who are so unfortunate as to be illiterate.

I hope you will forgive me for taking this so literally, but I think you should reflect on it. You are not the most feeble or ignorant person on earth, even if you may feel that way (and even the most feeble and ignorant are that way due to their circumstances and really should be looked at with due respect in light of their surrounding context).

>i just wanted to be a hero

What is a hero to you? Is it someone who helps others, even if they don't get recognized for it?

I made a thread a long time ago. It didn't really take off, but it was about "unsung heroes".

It was sort of a tribute thread to all the people throughout history who have done great things, but for one reason or another never made it to the history books.

Those people did exist and even if I can't remember them personally, I hope I helped honor their memory as a collective.

>>36077868
I think that's natural for human beings.

Let's assume that I don't believe in science. There. Every science person is offended.

But, science is objective, right? Well, that applies to people with those beliefs. They believe them to be true, albeit, from your perspective, it isn't. From the perspective of scientists, it's true. From laymen who choose to ignore it, it's false.

I'm not saying that science is the best evidential thing, and that beliefs are worse than it. that's a whole other story lol.

I know myself science is awesome and useful but some people just hate empiricism, some want to cherry pick only what they want.

That's why they get angry when you disagree.

Because people have perspectives in which their belief is "true" by default, and proving them otherwise is worthless.

I guess one could say science is also a belief. But that's a whole other can of worms, with notions of objectivity and stuff. probably because it's the most useful.

>>36077974
kek, nice reply, but you could've added a reason you know.

wtf does he keep on yapping about anyway.

File: 20170317_202434-729x1296.jpg (164KB, 729x1296px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 729x1296px

If u dont read deleuze ur a bich

>>36078044
Watts himself mentions in one of his lectures that he's an "entertainer, not a philosopher". Then adds that he has "nothing to sell to you". So I guess this makes him a broke stand-up comedian.

>>36078014

It may be common among human beings, but it isn't universal and it isn't always the case for every person all the time. I'm sure you agree with that, right?

I actually have had a lot of conversations with people who disagreed with me, and I was able to change their minds. And people have done that to me too. So it is possible to change one's beliefs in response to logical arguments and new evidence.

Even if that doesn't happen, though, it is a lot better to be civil to others and take their arguments into account rather than just snub them. I think society would get better (more peaceful, more kind and considerate) the more we as members of society look at others ideas and evaluate them critically rather than dismissing them outright.

As far as science goes, you are definitely right about it opening up a can of worms. At heart, wouldn't you say that science is an exploratory tool for understanding nature?

>>36078098
>t. Nick Land

This is kind of piggybacking off the Slayer posts, but I think some popular music can indeed have philosophical themes.

I like this song quite a bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VZjE6JdHg

If you listen to the lyrics, you might notice they're actually pretty meaningful. I see this song as a cry for help, the cry of a man who has grown terribly frustrated with the bad experiences he's had in life, and his frustration with the lack of cohesion and understanding in society.

I feel like there's a deep sense of urgency in this song.

>>36078014
>>36078111

I also want to bring up the issue of consistency.

If you can really, truly show someone that holds two contradictory perspectives, that they are indeed contradictory, then if that person is intellectually honest, they will either refine one or both of the perspectives, or abandon one or both of the perspectives.

To not do so is a sort of hypocrisy.

>>36078111
Yeah, I do agree with you.

Yeah, people's minds can change, but some beliefs are more "solid" and thus are harder to change. You can change some people, some you can't, and some just want to protect one belief out of all there other beliefs.

for example, you believe, and absolutely hold to be true to be human. some random kid can't convince you you're actually just imagining you're a human, or that you aren't. I'm not talking about linguistics here either, but there's a literal feeling of truthness of the "fact" that you are human. I'm not saying that it's possible for you to be not human, but merely suggesting that being human as an essence of truth to it.

For example. Try believing something you believe is not true. You might get a feeling of falseness. Or something like that. I can fly. I am an alien. I am a dog. I am just the text. Those are pretty much assured to be false, unless you have a delusional belief system, and I won't judge that either.

Logical arguments are pretty good desu, but don't forget about rhetoric. That's the reason why a manipulative priest can convince people that evolution is false while a scientist is fucking standing there confirming the theory of evolution by showing a lot of evidence and peer reviewed studies, etc etc.

>>36078334

I think a lot of people cannot distinguish valid logical arguments from manipulative rhetoric and I see this as a problem.

It's also frustrating that many people have done very well for themselves (financially, socially, etc.) by basically manipulating and lying to people, whereas other people whose scruples prevent that are ignored and are suffering poverty or other problems.

>>36078306
well you can have two contrary views as long as there's no level of commitment or absolute truth nes, but merely as hypotheticals considered equally.

When a belief becomes more than a hypothetical, and has a feeling of truthness, then that's where human beings disagree on things.

btw, is there a word for that? A feeling of truthness, not that it is true objectively. things like subjective beliefs which people hold to be true. It feels convoluted to keep calling it a feeling of truthness.

>>36078411

>well you can have two contrary views as long as there's no level of commitment or absolute truth nes, but merely as hypotheticals considered equally.

I think you can CONSIDER those two contrary views, compare and contrast and critique them, etc. That's fine, and actually often a very smart thing to do.

But what I'm talking about is people who blatantly hold two contradictory positions...that's the hypocrisy I'm talking about. People like this actually cause serious problems in their wake, and they either don't notice this, or don't really care.

A lot of politicians (maybe I won't name names) play both sides of the fence on a lot of issues, and it's bothersome that people who do this get so influential and powerful because of it.

>btw, is there a word for that? A feeling of truthness, not that it is true objectively. things like subjective beliefs which people hold to be true. It feels convoluted to keep calling it a feeling of truthness.

I'm not sure. I'm actually having a hard time understanding what you mean when you use the phrase. I apologize. Could you clarify somewhat?

Like the concept of science, the nature of truth itself is a huge can of worms too.

>>36078407
well fuck. rhetoric is actually thought about as a valid method though for convincing, but not proving something is true, but people find it hard to distinguish.

I mean most people don't care about epistemology/logic/etc. enough to apply it to real life, ironically, and rhetoric suffices as it stimulates human emotions and sounds appealing.

I mean, I guess you could tell people to take a logic course or something idk.

>>36078411
>>36078491

Also, it's not just politicians who do this. Lay people do it too, and they too cause problems for the rest of society.

I'm not saying people who do this are all bad. Maybe everyone does this at some point or another.

But it causes a lot of grief and some people are going to wind up losing badly when people blow hot and cold with the same breath.

>>36078491
Let me see.

Let's consider something proven to be objectively true but false to some. The world is round.

People who know it to be true FEEL that it is true and people who think it is false FEEL it is false regardless of the actual objective truth of the earth being round

>>36078553

I guess you could call that conviction.

Both people who understand the earth is round, and those who disbelieve that it round, hold convictions about the shape of the world.

Conviction could apply, whether the thing you're convinced of is actually true or false.

There is no love, but understanding.
For example, in the bible, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and began understanding they were naked etc.
God who had left the temptation, had left us with knowledge and the capability of comprehensive thought. Only through comprehensive thought can you love someone, by realizing who someone is on a personal standpoint. Therefore, there is no emotion "Love" but it's a concept in the multiple tiers of Understanding.

How does that sound?

>>36078614
exactly. Conviction. people have convictions about various stuff, regardless of objective truth, if it's something that isn't subjective.

And people try to change other people's convictions, "legally" using logic, and "illegally" using rhetoric, although not all rhetoric is bad. It's usually only bad if people use it to prove something is true, but for trying to understand something in a human-relatable way as long as people tell them that rhetoric is just a useful device, it's okay.

>>36078693

I suppose when I was using "rhetoric", I meant it in the sense of spurious argumentation, using deceit. But there are other kinds of rhetoric that are not dishonest.

And, with that kind of rhetoric, you can weave in logical arguments too.

>>36078491
Also, I think I get what you mean about hypocrisy.

some people say that religion was a tool used by rulers to control the masses, even if the rulers weren't actual believers. Not saying that religion is wrong, but just an example.

Sounds pretty similar to doublethink.

>>36078738
okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Seems like we used two different meanings of rhetoric lol.

Also, do you believe that an objective reality exists? I mean, that's a useless question if you're a happy human being humaning normally, but stuff like eternal oblivion is scary, and we have weird conscious experiences like dreams and schizophrenia.

I mean, if our brains are just interpreting an imperfect representation of the world, what's stopping it from going totally haywire?

Schizophrenics, for example, don't know they are schizophrenics.

And some dreams are as vivid as real life, and can last for a subjective month. Or a year.

I'm guessing that the only thing stopping us from becoming crazy is collaborating in a proper way with other human beings, given the social nature of beliefs, and especially science.

I guess science is somehow the most objective, short of being able to experience other people's consciousnesses directly, because it's very methodical. It has to happen in reality, like for example experiments.

Math and logic(I think) is also like this, albeit extremely abstractly. No one can have different opinions on one + one's ultimate value, which is two, assuming that the symbols are merely shorthand for saying something like: if there is one object, and another, like . . Then it is also .. .

Philosophy and religion, on the other hand...

>>36078779

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, doublethink.

It's a major cause of suffering in this world. It is incredibly destructive.

Philosophy then:
>thought provoking questions
>discoveries
>solutions

Philosophy now:
>But X said that...
>no, no, Y said that...

>>36078969

>Also, do you believe that an objective reality exists?

Yes. I mean, I don't necessarily see subjective experiences as being separate from that either. I think subjective experiences are a part of objective reality.

For example, say there's a guy named Carl, and he loves chocolate.

His perception (chocolate is delicious) is subjective, but nevertheless, at least in some sense, it is an objective fact of the universe that Carl loves chocolate.

>I mean, that's a useless question if you're a happy human being humaning normally, but stuff like eternal oblivion is scary, and we have weird conscious experiences like dreams and schizophrenia.

I actually think it's a very useful question, even if you're happy but have some concern for your continued happiness, or the happiness/well-being of others, and your own understanding of this world.

>I mean, if our brains are just interpreting an imperfect representation of the world, what's stopping it from going totally haywire?

That's a great question. I think there has to be some sort of "consensual reality" wherein multiple people in a society have to have some shared axiomatic convictions. Else what you have is a bunch of people living in their own little worlds, and they're going to have a hard time getting anywhere or cooperating on anything.

>Schizophrenics, for example, don't know they are schizophrenics.

I think a lot of them do know that, actually. But they have a hard time distinguishing reality from delusion.

>I'm guessing that the only thing stopping us from becoming crazy is collaborating in a proper way with other human beings, given the social nature of beliefs, and especially science.

Yeah, that goes with what I was talking about just now actually!

Looks like I'm going to have to split up this reply into at least two posts due to the character limit.

File: image.jpg (289KB, 450x3644px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 450x3644px

>>36079023
<<why does the original function still exist. this board has a culture and people can always bypass it.>>

>>36078969
>>36079099

>I guess science is somehow the most objective, short of being able to experience other people's consciousnesses directly, because it's very methodical. It has to happen in reality, like for example experiments.

A problem is that a lot of scientists and philosophers of science (many of these are the same people) disagree with what exactly science is--even some of the core premises of science.

For example, some scientists/philosophers of science (and again many of these guys are both scientists and philosophers of science--so for short I'm just going to call them philscis here--I know it sounds a little cheesy but it just seems useful) believe that certain axiomatic beliefs that appear to contradict empirical evidence must still be retained to keep science "objective"--others disagree.

An example of this would be the conflict between philscis who say that in science, we must assume that experimenters have libertarian free will, and can act independently of all the chemicals that make up their body, including their brain and nervous system, when they do experiments--that the scientist himself who is doing the experiment is NOT bound by the laws of nature (whatever those may be)--because if he were, then nature itself may lead the scientist to false conclusions about his experiment.

Other philscis will say that no, it makes no sense to assume that the experimenter himself, his body and mind being products of matter and energy, can act independently of the laws of nature, and we have to accept that yes, nature itself may lead scientists to false conclusions, but that's just how it is and we have to make do, because the idea of making a "magical" exception to the laws of nature for scientists doing an experiment is irrational.

Who is right? I think the latter group makes a lot more sense. Science is an exploratory tool for nature, but there is a primacy of nature itself that may be deluding us all, even scientists.

>>36079099
>consensus reality
>axiomatic convictions
pretty nice concise wording of what a lot of societies share.

you're pretty good at this. I actually knew these phrases before from a forum I frequent, but it's the first time I saw it outside of it, in here of all places.

>>36079318

Oh, thank you.

What is the other forum? I'm curious.

We do have philosophy threads here on /r9k/ (I've stumbled upon a few and started a few myself...this is maybe the third or fourth one I've started since the start of last year, I think) and there is often some really great discussion.

>>36079277
>there is a primacy of nature that may be deluding us all.

whoa you hit the nail on the coffin. That makes sense.

the question of free will and nature messing with scientific results is complicated, and is a result of human beings, well, being human I guess.

Well, in the first place, all animals, at least to our understanding, have an imperfect version of reality in their heads. including us humans.

I mean, humans are special maybe because they have a way higher capability for abstract thinking and capability.

But I wonder if a being that can be a "perfect" scientist can exist at all. He must somehow exist independently of reality, and his senses somehow map objectively all information in the universe like atom laws, etc, and can make predictions like that. Also, it must have an extremely logical mindset.

Humans use tools to approximate these measurements, and developed tons of rules to develop clarity, but these things are a layer of abstraction from reality.

I mean, rulers are awesome because human brains cannot accurately compute length numerically because of our eyes already calculating foreshortening and having approximations for walking and normal stuff. Computers are way good because humans, most of them, don't have brains with the capable attention span and interest to hold numbers of many digits in their head short of cheats like mnemonics which are still sons of off computers.

I guess humans can never really have an objective look at reality. But through many generations I guess, maybe we can evolve, or, maybe even some dubious claims like what Elon musk says about the singularity and transhumanism.

File: 17834130_10208448680401614_7624811293142360933_o.jpg (73KB, 822x1024px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 822x1024px

Why do people seek out peace? It's the nature of man to fight. Fighting brings satisfaction and the advancement of human kind. All of history's greatest tales and achievements are ushered in by war and great battles. I can't comprehend people who think peace is an achievable state amongst separate nations.

On the theme of music in philosophy, this is another song I think that is loaded with philosophical themes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh6LEWd04Uw

I feel really disappointed that a lot of modern music (I mean music of the last 10 years or so) doesn't touch much on philosophy as a lot of older, classic rock songs did. There are exceptions but they're few and far between.

>>36079745

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that throughout history, a lot of warriors were really trying to achieve peace...that they waged war, but deep down it was because they wanted peace.

Not all by any means, but some.

>>36079437
well, it's on Reddit, actually. Not the main philosophy one, but it has an air of secrecy around it, and it has a very good discussion feel, but I wouldn't like to disclose it here.

It's hard to pinpoint it exactly without telling anyone who might want to invade it or ruin it. But I can tell you that it studies the nature of beliefs, and axiomatic convictions and consensus reality are major themes there.

Actually, as far as I know, these people get real nitty-gritty with it, and can sometimes get rude. I mean, fuck, a small community further split up, because apparently the posts started becoming shitty and it became more like "enlightenment for dummies" type of thing where people try to become euphoric about the universe instead of constantly debating about the overall nature of experience.

Sorry to give you blue-balls, but I'm a regular poster at both subs, even if one of them is becoming slightly shittier, but they are small communities. Hell, I was there before the split too. Something like pre popular polandball rules, if you know that subreddit.

the only hint I'll give is that most of the moderators used to think the occult was the answer but thought it was too shitty of an explanation and then they read up on Idealism, Existentialism, Empericsim, some of eastern philosophy, and thought it weird they had differing truth rules.

>>36079884
btw, I'm going to go now. Bye. This was some really good discussion, even though it was two of us conversing with people making unrelated posts inbetween.

Honestly, you made my head whirl. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking, here, especially. I'm actually crying right now lol

OP was not a faggot today.

>>36079997

Thanks for contributing so much to my thread. I really appreciate it, and yes, I think we got some great discussion here.

Take care.

>>36076829
None of it matters, you won't ever be king or ghandi so enjoy your mediocreness for a good while while you can my friends

File: images(22).jpg (34KB, 666x408px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 666x408px

Religion is pointless and continental posturing is equally so.

File: image.png (687KB, 1242x512px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1242x512px

>>36080214
>mfw analytics are completely autistic.

File: images(23).jpg (36KB, 459x581px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 459x581px

>>36080266
While continentals are posturing charlatans.

>>36080214
>>36080266
>>36080283
Yeah didn't but Godel single handedly BTFO analytical philosophy

>>36079884
i've visited your other plebbit philosophy forum and it's basically pre-undergrad cancer

please read a book

File: image.png (316KB, 320x655px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 320x655px

>>36080283
wew where do you get these philosophy shit posts

>>36080325
No, I think you're referring to the incompleteness theorems, but that's not what they are for.
>>36080357
I made them.

Can someone of you explain to me the problem of universals?
Im trying to understand plato and medieval philosophers but idk

>>36080477
*aristotle
sorry

>>36080477
>>36080504

I can't explain it but I can give you a bump.

>>36076829
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah

Antinatalism is the ultimate redpill. Know yourself, my friends, and do not bring any more into this world.

>>36077347
Is the Keanu Reaves movie accurate to the story?

Science is our best possible means of discerning concrete objective reality within our epistemic limits.

All religions and new-age woo is based on unfalsifiable personal experience and anecdotal evidence, which has proven ad nauseum to be utterly unreliable.

>>36081962
Consensus reality =/= objective reality

>>36082215
Like I said, best POSSIBLE means of discerning it. Not logically provable means.

>>36082484
Why seek anything less than absolute truth?

If you know science won't be able to prove itself, why would you seek it?

>>36082542
The only absolute truth I can possibly know when it comes to concrete objectivity is that I exist as a conscious entity. Everything beyond that makes at least one assumption, with science making the fewest.

We seek what we can with science to improve our experiences and know more about the world we find ourselves in, whether it's the realest possible world or not.

>>36079745
You first, my friend.

File: 1489390550744.jpg (173KB, 706x729px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 706x729px

Do you guys have an opinion on "occult" philosophy?

By that, I mean stuff you'd find in a book like the Kybalion.

>>36082615
>with science making the fewest
Lol. Any and every "law" is an assumption. Gravity being a strong assumption, time the strongest.

And dark matter/energy? Scientists propose models of the Universe where the vast majority of its composition is "this weird thing I made up so that the large-scale equations make sense" and it is taken to be true or even remotely close to true.

Science, by limiting itself to only provable concepts, becomes so severly limited it might as well be child's play

Take a video game. Do you wonder about the workings of the in-game world? Do you need to worry about the game's engine in order to play the game? Does anything else matter that is not actually playing and enjoying?
If you were a video game character, how could you ever possibly understand how the entire game works? The engine, the developers, the console you're being played on. It's beyond any comprehension you could have.

File: kant's theory of knowledge [1].jpg (574KB, 2694x2208px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 2694x2208px

Currently bought a series of essays on philosophical methodology called "The Philosophy of Philosophy" by Timothy Williamson. After reading the introduction I came to the conclusion that the method proposed for the essay themselves was obviously to be analytical--which my presumption being that the only clear way to analyze philosophy as a subject would be rigorous conceptual analysis.

The style runs is like most current philosophical works( even Continental)--heavily academic with a profusion of citations and quotations. I think that is bearable for me, and I appreciate the scholarship, but I find it lackluster at times personal creativity would be also appreciated.

Simon Critchley smashes at least 4 or 5 philosophers in one paragraph. Am I the only one who notices this?

>>36082703
The strength of those models and the demonstration of their accuracy comes from their predictive power. If a proposed model is able to make accurate predictions, especially of never-before-seen phenomena, it's put on the highest pedestal.

>Science, by limiting itself to only provable concepts, becomes so severely limited it might as well be child's play

This is the most autistic thing I've read today. Concrete objectivity may only be ultimately known through empiricism. Logic alone will not suffice, as it's possible to imagine logically consistent, possible, and well-defined laws and objects which nevertheless do not exist.

As for your video game analogy, you haven't done a single thing to refute my point, only given a good example of why what I've said is true.

A video game character can only ever discern the laws of its world. Whether its world is the "truest" will always be beyond its knowledge. Same with us, and with any conscious entity. Science remains the best possible means of discerning concrete objective truth.