Reminder that you're not a true scientist or mathematician

Can I still be an engineer?

Engineer reporting.

I will never read your stupid faggot kiddie books OP, because they're long obsolete and probably not very good.

>>8328079
Yes, i'm talking about people wanting to be intellectuals, so that excludes engineers.

>>8328085
Bye.

>>8328079
>>8328085
gay

>>8328099
Okay, in that case I would recommend that you also read Socrates.

>>8328099
>Bye.
Not him, but I'm positive that he was being ironic to ridicule engineers' intellectual arrogance. Could be wrong though, you never know.

>they did it first, so even though they did it wrong, you should read it anyway

no thanks, i'll stick to updated stuff

>>8328111
bait

>>8328109
Am him, frankly I'm quite used to going over peoples' heads here, what with all the aut history majors.

>>8328114
Not sure about Plato, but Aristotle was wrong about literally everything

Agreed. Anyone who genuinely seeks wisdom should at least read the Greeks. Science is a failed system of understanding; philosophy alone produces absolute truth through deduction. It is itself the study of logic, from which all science and mathematics stem.

>>8328120
You're right to not be sure about Plato, because he is still relevant today, and no, Aristotle was not wrong about "literally everything", can't you just wikipedia him and see for yourself?

>>8328111
Did i imply that you should read them because they were right about everything?

I don't think so.

>>8328111
They did nothing wrong.

Everyone who followed them tried to improve upon their work and failed.

Hence, the entirety of Western thought is a footnote to them.

>>8328124
Everything Aristotle postulated in every field was blown out of the water. And he was a very very bad mathematician.

All he did right was setting the principles of empiricism.

>>8328121
Science uses induction, not logic.

>>8328120
Damn, didn't know the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle are wrong.

Really makes you think huh...

>>8328126
>>8328130
Plato and Aristotle *are* footnotes. Hell, there are better and older philosophers around who contributed more deeply to science and math (think Archimedes)

It's really no more than a meme. Everyone holds them on high stem because literally everyone in the West in the past 2000 years has started with Plato and Aristotle.

>>8328073
Fucking meh. What great insight to you draw from Aristotle classification of causes? Except that he and the people who followed him unironically believed "final causes" were a thing and that you should never, ever follow their example?

>>8328121
Philosophy doesn't produce truths. There is no point at which certain schools are proven wrong. At best they fall out of fashion.

File: Kurt-Gödel 2.png (3MB, 1156x1228px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1156x1228px

>>8328073
>Aristotle

He set back humanity by 2000 years

>>8328139
He's talking about science using induction (aka a formal fallacy) whereas philosophy and math are formal systems that use deductions from axioms (aka truth)

>>8328085
>long obsolete

It's really sad that there are people out threre who still believe a^2+b^2=c^2

>>8328148
that's Pythagoras, not Plato or Aristotle

Both Plato and Aristotle were bad mathematicians

From Plato:

Plato wrote The Republic in around 375 BC, so about 75 years before Euclid wrote The Elements. In this work Plato sets out his ideas about education. For this, he believes, one must study the five mathematical disciplines, namely arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonics. After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.

>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.

Philosophers BTFO

>>8328139
Wouldn't you say final causes are a thing in evolutionary biology?

Also, any proposition or set of propositions that wants to explain an artefact should contain final causes.

>>8328144
Yeah but that's it, a bunch of different system relying on different axioms. It's no different from different competing systems on physics. That's like saying physics rely on principles because individual physical theories have principles from which you derive the rest.

The only difference is in physics what decides between competing systems are experiments, while in philosophy what decides the success of a system is how popular it becomes with philosophers.

>>8328158
>mastering mathematics
kek

>>8328163
I never thought about it.

If you define induction as an axiom, then science is a formal system that produces truths...

Good catch

>>8328138
>(think Archimedes)
First off, Archimedes was not a philosopher, and second, he lived AFTER Aristotle and Plato.

jesus man, at least google things before posting, it's the most basic requirement to having a historical discussion

The reason people hail them is because not only did they start a great number of NEW fields of study on their own, but they also went as far as was possible for that era in each field. Aristotle delved in more fields than you can conceive right now, let alone know something about. He didn't postulate the theory of relativity because he didn't have the preceding knowledge and technology, nor the singular focus on one field of study. But he contributed so much to knowledge and science that you basically can't ask anything more of him. He is undoubtedly one of the most influential (if not THE most) influential person who ever lived.

>>8328161
>Wouldn't you say final causes are a thing in evolutionary biology?
I'd say quite the opposite, that final causes reasoning is the biggest trap that awaits the evolutionary biologist, as Gould warned them.
Final causes are the reason evopsych remained a pseudoscience for so long in particular.

>>8328176
Well, Jesus was the most influential person that ever lived, i think that's pretty clear.

>>8328180
>mastering mathematics
Good one Plato.

>>8328179
So let's say i want to explain the eye, shouldn't a satisfactory explanation of the eye contain its function or purpose, i.e. the final cause?

Or the material and efficient cause will exhaust literally everything there is to know about the eye?

>>8328180
I will troll /lit/ with this picture for ever

>>8328180
>didn't even know about calculus
>thinks he "mastered" anything

>>8328196
>he non-ironically believes that calculus started with newton/leibniz

keeeek

>>8328194
>shouldn't a satisfactory explanation of the eye contain its function or purpose, i.e. the final cause?
nay
>Or the material and efficient cause will exhaust literally everything there is to know about the eye?
yes. If you're thinking about the evolutionary advantage of the eye it will appear in your efficient account of the eye development.
But some aspects of our biology don't even have a "use", that is why thinking in terms of final cause is making unwarranted assumptions.

Also explaining things in terms of final cause leave a massive hole in the middle of your theory: how come all the things that could have a use are not there? If you think final causes have any explanatory value, you have to explain why all those potential features with a final cause are absent.
This is of course a massive, pointless endeavour. And if you're not gonna do it, you might as well drop final causes entirely because they don't teach you anything.

>>8328158
>Republic 527a:

“This at least,” said I, “will not be disputed by those who have even a slight acquaintance with geometry, that this science is in direct contradiction with the language employed in it by its adepts.” “How so?” he said. “Their language is most ludicrous, though they cannot help it, for they speak as if they were doing something and as if all their words were directed towards action. For all their talk is of squaring and applying and adding and the like, whereas in fact the real object of the entire study is pure knowledge.” “That is absolutely true,” he said. “And must we not agree on a further point?” “What?” “That it is the knowledge of that which always is, and not of a something which at some time comes into being and passes away.” “That is readily admitted,” he said, “for geometry is the knowledge of the eternally existent.” “Then, my good friend, it would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward.” “Nothing is surer,” he said.

Mathematicians BTFO

>>8328207
The only person he BTFO is himself, we don't talk like that anymore.

>>8328207
He was right. Greeks used to do math with words. Now we have symbols. So it doesn't apply to modern math.

>>8328206
>the evolutionary advantage of the eye it will appear in your efficient account of the eye development.

I don't get that, could you elaborate on how you can exhaust the evolutionary advantage of something with efficient causes alone?

Also, shouldn't evolutionary advantage itself contain final cause types of elements in it?

>>8328221
You could say the first organisms that got a random mutation that gave them photosensitive cells detected the presence of predators, therefore them and their descent had a statistically lower rate of death by predation, which led them to reproduce more, and so on.

There is no inversion of time here as there is in final causes.

>Also, shouldn't evolutionary advantage itself contain final cause types of elements in it?
I really don't believe so. Thinking about final causes is what lead Durkheim to unwarranted asumptions. That if something is there it MUST have some use.

>>8328215
>He was right

Nah, he conflated the prose of mathematical texts with what is trying to prove.

Prose x Proof.

>>8328240
>a random mutation that gave them photosensitive cells detected the presence of predators, therefore them and their descent had a statistically lower rate of death by predation, which led them to reproduce more, and so on.

You don't take reproduction and survival as teleological elements at all?

What about teleonomy, what do you think about that?

>>8328215
people don't do math with words anymore? color me surprised

>>8328259
>What about teleonomy, what do you think about that?
I think it's a lazy shortcut, but eh maybe someone will come along and make a bunch of fruitful predictions with it and prove me wrong.

>>8328073
>when you try to become a true scientist by spending countless hours reading all the works of Plato and Aristotle but you forget to publish any research so your scientific career is dead in the water and you have to become a high school teacher but at least you can impress retards from /lit/ on a taiwanese cave painting imageboard

das it mane

>>8328106
Socrates didn't write down any of his works. Everything we know about Socrates came from Plato.

>>8328158
>one must study the five mathematical disciplines, namely arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonics

So high school level stuff?

>>8328299
>thatsthejoke.jpeg

>>8328311
In Plato's time that is all mathematics.

In the Republic Plato describes his ideal city, where a person should only be a governor after studying at least 50 years, 10 years being focused on mathematics.

File: advice.jpg (112KB, 1277x719px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1277x719px

>>8328073
>t. Psychology major

You are not a scientist try /soc/ or /lit/

>>8328897
t. STEM neckbeard

>>8328184
I think it could be a toss up between him and Genghis Khan, depending on what you mean by "influential."

File: 1471705442459.jpg (10KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 251x251px

>>8328073
>You're not a true scientist or mathematician until you have read the complete works of both Aristotle and Plato
>you are STEM

Brainlets strike again

>Ok I read his books what do i do now OP
>Hmm... well i don't know how they're any relevant to modern times but you have to convince people that you read them and are now super smart
>How do I do that?
>Oh just throw around quotes from this couple thousand year old book
>Like in real life?
>Yeah like when people are trying to have a normal conversation about last night's basketball game make sure to add a comment about "Plato blah blah blah cave blah blah slaves to society"
>Neat. I'll try it out on my friends at my next Autism Speaks meeting

>>8329364
>>8329364
>i don't know how they're any relevant to modern times

You are a complete idiot.

>>8329471
Look m8
The fact that the whole joke that Psychology is was based on the tabula rasa/ cave new wave Platonic Aristotelian bullshit doesnt make them relevant for real scientists

>>8329506
You clearly have never read a single line of Plato or Aristotle...

File: socrates.jpg (136KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1920x1080px

>>8329516
>if you dont agree with me you havent read it
I want Humanities to go back to /his/

>>8329524
It's not that i don't agree with you, you're just vomiting senseless bullshit, i couldn't agree with you even if i wanted to...

>Psychology is was based on the tabula rasa/ cave new wave Platonic Aristotelian bullshit

Like wtf... wake me up.

>>8328148
I mean, if your field has characteristic 2...

>>8328207
>>8328215
I think the essence of his point is that mathematicians tend to only look at concrete models of philosophical principles. Not all are guilty, especially looking at Grothendieck, Lawvere, Lurie, Schreiber, and Thurston, but a bad philosopher makes for a crippled mathematician. The truths underlying our deductions are what we are after, but far too many are devoted to working internal to their models rather than opening up to the deeper interactions going on upstairs.

Fortunately, it seems like mathematics is moving in a good direction, with acceptance of category theory and, as Lurie puts it, "theory for the sake of other theory." Eventually we will be to the point where the community as a whole recognizes that the deeper truths are what we really are searching for (or should be).

>>8328073

If you're a scientist you don't have time read books that aren't relevant to your field..

>>8328299
>Any year
>Doesn't even know about Xenofon

>>8329606
Yeah, if you're a low iq dumb scientist you don't...

Don't worry, you don't have to read it, this reading is for smart people only :^)

>only 5000 pages
So holiday reading?

>>8329665

Illuminate me the reasons as to why should I waste my time on it.

>>8329699
Not him, but having knowledge in philosophy will give insight on how to properly call bullshit with philosotards in their own stupid language. So they have no grounds on which they can "trick" you into a retatded discussion about science or math.

>>8329709

I agree with that but I don't see a reason as to why should I read their complete works.

>Aristotle
>Plato

>>>/his/

>>8329699
Because every proper academic field has its origin on Plato and Aristotle, except math (which is like the sister of philosophy).

You know the scientific revolution? That can be considered as Aristotle winning the battle against Plato.

You know postmodern fags like Foucault or Derrida? That's Plato's influence.

People say every human being can be considered (on a fundamental level) as Aristotelian or Platonic.

>>8329764

Or you can go on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and read the summaries.

>>8328121
Apparently you never made it as far as Gödel..

>>8329764
>>8329665
>slacker who doesn't actually read his field literature detected
You can be le ebin Renaissance man while we actually get shit done.

>>8328148
>[math]a^{2+b^{2}} = c^2[/math]
Are you retarded? Stupid American

>>8328131
It's easy to laugh at pioneers now.
Aristotle made some missteps but he had some great insights. He set the ground for the whole idea of scala naturae, developmental biology and pharmacology.

>>8329850
>we actually get shit done.

Shut the fuck up you illiterate subhuman piece of shit, you think you're getting shit done when solving your cute differential equations?

Fucking kill youself you uneducated faggot, a trained monkey can do what you do...

>>8329880
Any barrista can read up a bit of everything because "every academic field is like, connected, maaaaan" and do absolutely nothing productive with it.

>>8329880
DiffyQs are DiffyQTs

>>8329884
You probably wouldn't do anything productive, that's because you're clueless and dumb...

Do you think that the big guys you suck dick for, like Einstein, Newton and Darwin, didn't read any Plato or Aristotle?

Just get out, faggot.

Probably more urgent that they read Hume.

>>8329880
Just tell us your field so we can laugh at you
I bet my right ball it is some made up humanities meme

>>8329932
They didn't try to use general culture as some sort of argument for their intellectual superiority. You don't get a prize for having hobbies.

>>8329941
Nice comeback, shitlord.

If you had taken a look on Aristotle and Plato your rhetoric wouldn't be so laughable...

>>8329950
>I'm a master of maieutics you guize
>the best I can come up with is calling people shitlord
You could have read the Wiki article on greek philosophy and you'd be at the same intellectual level you are now.

>>8329945
Really? Do you really think Aristotle didn't have any impact on Darwin's thinking?

Stop discoursing on stuff you don't know, it makes me cringe...

>>8328073
Many of their works are filled to the brim with obvious and blatant fallacious arguments by analogy. It's not very good.

Similarly, any grad student of bio knows more about evolution than Darwin did. That's why we no longer use "Origin Of Species" as a textbook.

>>8329953
>what im doing is maieutics

Do you have any idea how clueless you are about greek philosophy?

File: 1426364990669.jpg (47KB, 647x452px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 647x452px

>>8329950
>Nice comeback, shitlord.

Yep, thats humanities
ABANDON THREAD

Western philosophy is inferior to the east.

>>8329956
Point me out a single logically fallacious argument present in Aristotle and Plato.

Protip: You can't.

>>8329966
>east
>""""""philosophy"""""""

>>8329966
There is no such thing as "east philosophy"

>>8329968
I know this is a troll, but

Like, the entire of Plato's Republic is nothing but a collection of arguments by analogy, which are fallacious, such as the comparison of a population to sheep and the leader to a shepherd, and reaching weird and bizarre conclusions about the proper role of leaders and their "purpose".

>>8329961
>OMG I CAN'T ARGUE WITH HIM, BETTER CALL HIM HUMANITIES

You're deplorable to be honest...

You better abandon this thread, my soul will feel great relief knowing that there isn't a complete brain dead faggot lurking the thread.

>>8329973
Post the argument.

>>8329975
>soul
>>>/x/

>>8329958
Are you retarded or something? If you're pretending you've mastered all of Plato yes it does imply you know maieutics.
All this time wasted and you can't do basic logic. Wew.

>>8329975
>Argue with being called a shitlord
I asked you your field and you got all worked up, of course you are humanities

>>8329985
>i meant a literal soul

Please...

And yes, i do know what maieutics is, and that's why i know that what i was doing isn't maieutics, which you wrongly accused me of doing because you're a complete retard that never read Plato.

And how is that basic logic you retarded faggot? Knowing maieutics is a logical consequence of reading Plato? What rule of inference is that you uneducated piece of shit? Do you even know what logic is?

>>8329986
I called you a shitlord after you decided to avoid my points and call me LEL HUMANITIES, you're disgusting...

I'm a mathematician btw...

>>8330002
>which you wrongly accused me of doing
HOLY SHIT THAT READING COMPREHENSION
LITERATURE MAJORS CAN'T EVEN READ PROPERLY
AHAHAH HOLY FUCK

>>8330011
>>8329953
>I'm a master of maieutics you guize

Are you complete retarded? How many chromossomes do you have?

>>8330014
>I'm a master of maieutics
>I'm doing maieutics right now
Question: what kind of retard would think those are equivalent propositions and try to make a pedant point out of it?

What I accused you of, mr. "mathematician" (you're not), is being unable to come up with anything better than calling people shitlord while claiming to have read Plato. Which does logically imply that you know maieutics, yes.
Unless of course you advocate reading the classics and not remembering a single thing about them, which does look more and more likely.

File: wuzmathsandshiet.jpg (252KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 640x960px

>>8330002
>I'm a mathematician btw...
No you are not

>>8329978
Ex:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html

Starting from
>Nothing, he said, can be better than that statement.
and ending at:
>Then the just has turned out to be wise and good and the unjust evil and ignorant.

In short, this is what Plato does in that section.

Plato starts with the following truisms (1): (my rendition)
> A perfect musician will do something different than another perfect musician in the context of playing music, because they're both perfect.
> A perfectly wise person does not want to do something different than another perfectly wise person, because both are pefectly wise and therefore both will make the perfect choices.

Plato then slightly tweaks his language to reach this conclusion (2): (exact quote)
> Then the wise and good will not desire to gain more than his like, but more than his unlike and opposite?

Plato then uses that to reach the following conclusion (3): (my rendition)
> The wise and good will not desire and seek to obtain more material wealth and power than their neighbors, whether wise and good or unwise and evil.

Plato then uses that as a direct rebuttal of his opponent's position (4): (exact quote)
> the just does not desire more than his like but more than his unlike, whereas the unjust desires more than both his like and his unlike?

Statement 1 is a truism. It's an analytic statement. It's true by definition. It says nothing useful about the real world, e.g. not asynthetic.

Going from (1) to (3) a fallaciou. It's not even an argument by analogy. It's a trick of language by conflating similar grammatical sentence structures. Plato goes from (1) which is loosely the position that two persons who are perfect at some task will do the task equivalently, and by a cheat of language, he arrives at the non-sequitir conclusion (3): the wise and perfect people are not greedy for material wealth and power, in order to rebut his opponent's position (4).

File: 1362792754778.png (2KB, 295x295px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 295x295px

>>8329978
>"Woaw Pollus you really should never talk about anything if you can't give a proper clear definition of it a priori"
>"look for example the other day I was talking with a young mathematician and before talking about rational numbers he gave a proper definition of them using naturals, so that's how you should always do otherwise really nothing you say has value"
At this point Plato completely forgets that neither him nor Socrates would have been able to define the naturals anyway and had no problem talking about natural numbers.

Antique philosophers BTFO

>>8330018
Come on now, faggot. You obviously told me i'm a master of maieutics because of the way i was behaving, which you thought it was maieutics (since you're a complete retard and don't know what maieutics is). So yes, you did think i was doing maieutics and that's why you called me a master of maieutics.

I called the other guy a shitlord because he decided to avoid my points and go full 14 year old and call me "LEL HUMANITIES", calling him a shitlord wasn't supposed to be a argument, because i already had won the argument...

And no you stupid piece of shit, reading Plato does not logically imply knowledge of maieutics, no logical connective or rule of inference allows you to make that connection. You're confusing common sense with logic, and that's because you don't know any formal logic, and yet you pretend that you do, just kill yourself.

>>8330054
>You obviously told me i'm a master of maieutics because of the way i was behaving
Holy shit that delusion of grandeur.
No faggot I told you you claimed to be a master of maieutics because that's included in your claimed knowledge of Plato.
kys my man
The only leg you have left to stand on is making dumb assumptions, wew.

>no logical connective or rule of inference allows you to make that connection
>I know all of Plato
>Plato's work includes maieutic
>therefore I know maieutic
wow so fucking hard

>>8330036
I didn't do that right. This is actually hard, because Plato's logic is so muddled, precisely because his horrible arguments can only survive in ambiguity and confusion.

Let me try again.

Plato's end game is this: (my rendition)
> A perfectly wise and good person will not want to "go beyond" another perfectly wise and good person.
> A perfectly just person will not want to "go beyond" another perfectly just person.
> An ignorant person wants to "go beyond" another ignorant person, in order to obtain perfect wisdom.
> An unjust person wants to "go beyond" another unjust person.
> Therefore, because the sentence structure matches, it logically follows that a wise and just person is good, and an unjust person is evil.

This is the form of argument that is employed at the following exact quote:
> Then the just is like the wise and good, and the unjust like the evil and ignorant?
> That is the inference.

That form of argument is obviously fallacious.

>>8330070
My earlier post discuss how Plato tries to reach some of those conclusions.

For the unjust person prong, the origin of the premise is that the unjust person desires more material wealth and power than other people, whether the other people are just or unjust.

For the wise and good person prong, it relies on the truism that two perfect musicians will play music in exactly the same way, and it's logically impossible for one to outdo the other.

Then, through fallacious Platonic reasoning weighted down by thoughts of Platonic ideals concerning art and artists, Plato fallacious conflates these two very different things with the phrase "going beyond".

File: 1427629278687.jpg (82KB, 788x685px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 788x685px

>>8330036
>>8330070
>>8330073
Greekshits BTFO
will they ever recover?

>>8330070
I don't see the inference mistake, if you define good and evil the way he described then the argument is valid, you can invalidate the argument by rejecting it's premises, but the form seems valid to me, if you define good and evil properly, but it seems there's things missing out in your post, i will check out later the text.

>>8330100
The only "inference" is the similarity of sentence structure, or something equally asinine.

>>8330070
In my understanding, a person being "just" is defined during the dialogue as someone who recognizes he is similar to others or has equals and does not claim or desire advantage (this is important, advantage does not necessarily mean material wealth/power, the unit is supposed to be arbitrary or malleable to fit each example) over them. But the just person also claims advantage over those that are inherently different from him, the different being represented by the "unjust". "Unjust" is someone who does not recognize equals and desires advantage over everyone that is not him else regardless.

Socrates then gives an example of a wise person. The wise person, by their agreed-upon definition, recognizes that he has equals and does not claim advantage over them (such as other musicians or physicians). But the wise person, also by definition, claims to have an advantage over those that are different from him (the ignorant, in this case, since the attribute in question is knowledge). So it follows that he is just, all by definition. The "ignorant" on the other hand, is defined as someone who wishes to obtain more knowledge (the advantage in question) over everyone that is not him, similar or different. Therefore, he is unjust.

Good is interlinked as a virtue with wise by the ancient Greeks and the two philosophers in this dialogue by extension, with evil being interlinked with ignorant. So if a just person is also wise, then he is also good, and the same applies for the unjust and evil.

It's very late here so I might have made a few mistakes that I will check tomorrow. I think you might have a problem with how many definitions they give to make the argument work, but I'm quite certain it follows like I described.

>>8329856
PEMDAS nigger

>>8329764

Every proper academic field also has its origin in the dictionary. Should I also read the Oxford Dictionary of English? I don't have time to waste on reading 5000 pages just to find out someone else was influenced by them. I can learn all that from wikipedia. Unless I want to be a condescending asshole to everyone else. Then I'd read it.

By the way, every human being can be considered (on a fundamental level) as anything or anything else.

File: featherless-chicken.jpg (42KB, 420x800px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 420x800px

Behold, a man.

OP is an idiot

Philosophy's obsession with its Greek roots is like requiring engineering students to study the intricacies of the hand axe. They were surpassed and are a historic footnote, and we can and actually do better now. We're grateful for their effforts, but it's time to move on and not be bogged down by their unavoidable flaws and mistakes.

>>8330941
This. Starting with the greeks is retarded. Many schools make you read a few extracts or ideas as intro and then deal into Descartes, thomas aquinas etc.

>>8330941
Kek, as though bypassing them poses some benefit. If any discipline there is isn't a rush, it is philosophy.

Taking a month or two to year to cover the Greeks isn't about seeking exposure to profound ideas, it is about providing context for what came after and improved upon it.

>>8332120
~out of the year

>>8332120
If philosophy is a rigorous and academic course as claimed, there should be a textbook that has a more modern view on the greeks.

>>8332203
The Greeks were generally wrong and obsessed with masculinity.

The enlightenment philosophers argued over a man in the sky and whether or not earthquakes were evil or benevolent events.

Modern philosophers argue about the exact meaning of the second independent clause in the fourth paragraph of paper X.

>>8332207

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

>>8328073
So how many of you great intellectuals have done some worthy research?

My research in semiconductor based gas sensors looks good.

My previous research also dealt with semiconductors (lasers) for a quite specific optical research project which got me some real good stuff going and fame.

So what have you done guys?


PhD EE

>>8329856
How does one eliminate the exponent of a variable from an equation? Also, is the value of b the value of a (equaling any given real number) plus one?

>>8332229
Why not just ignite all the gas with the lasers, problem solved.

>>8332229
Brittney Spears, get >>>/out/.

File: 20160301_142207.jpg (815KB, 2304x1296px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 2304x1296px

>>8329720
>excluding the beginning of philosophy and subsequently mathematics

>emotionally retarded pederasts who got triggered by the smallest things that their bestial minds couldn't comprehend
>the founding fathers of all intellectual activities

>>8333001
If Aristotle is a retard, then who is a genius to you?

>>8333104
Ken Ham

>>8333128
Do you consider yourself funny?

>>8329764
>Aristotle's empiricism
>anywhere near the experimental empiricism of the scientific revolution

File: brehh.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

>>8330351
kek

>>8333148
I consider you a furry

>>8329764
>You know the scientific revolution? That can be considered as Aristotle winning the battle against Plato.
Holy shit what the fuck.
Aristotle had already won the battle for the entirety of late antiquity, middle-age and Renaissance.

>>8333156
Do you consider yourself funny?

>>8333160
>late antiquity

Are you fucking kidding me?

>middle-ages

Very late in the middle-ages

>Renaissance

Ever heard of the rationalist tradition? Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and company? That's Plato.

File: 1414354923767.png (20KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x200px

>>8333166
>Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz
>Renaissance

>>8333166
>we owe modern science to Aristotle
>as a proof, let me present all those fathers of modern science as Platonician
I can't even fathom how you thought you had put some sort of argument together.

>>8333172
>Spinoza and Leibniz
>Fathers of modern science

You can only argue for Descartes, and his contributions to modern science are all related more to a mathematical framework, rather than an empirical focus, which is very platonic.

Don't opinate on subjects you know nothing about...

.

>>8328073
>Aristotle and Plato
... neither of whom was a
"true" scientist nor mathematician.
Shit-tier bait, m8

>>8333178
>hurr durr I'm butthurt because integral calculus resolved my stupid greek riddles

>>8333178
>Descartes, and his contributions to modern science are all related more to a mathematical framework
God could you spout any more first year cliched bullshit?

>>8333196
Wow, you just said that Spinoza was a father of modern science, and yet i'm the first year dude?

What you said doesn't even qualify as first year, it's just complete retardation...

>>8333204
>I... I totally didn't dismiss Descartes and Leibniz contibutions, no no no, I...I'll just try and be pedant now if that's ok with you
You'll always be mediocre.

>>8333207
Dude, stop pretending you know what you're talking about...

For the love of god, you think fucking Spinoza and fucking Leibniz were fathers of modern science. And you even called them "platonician", which is not even a fucking word, that's how much of a retard you are, you don't even know that "platonists" is the right term. Stop memeing with green text and go read a fucking book.

>>8333212
What the fuck are you even trying to argue now? You're the one who mentioned Spinoza, are you fucking retarded?
And yes Leibniz contribution was significant, but of course you don't know that since all you know of him is le meme rationalism.
Same thing for Descartes, all you fucking know about him is the coordinate system. You have no fucking idea of the extent of Cartesian mechanics. Experiments are at the heart of Descartes method as much as inferences.
Like holy shit fucking kys. Just because you first year teacher just taught you about the meme tension between rationalist and empiricists doesn't mean it's an accurate lens to see the history of science through.

>more fucking pedantry
Not everybody read books in the same language you do. If you get past first year you might learn that and a lot of other amazing facts about the world.

>>8328143
Explain

>>8333230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_considered_father_or_mother_of_a_scientific_field

HMMMMMMMM...

>>8333997
He didn't set back humanity, but for some reason medieval philosophers sucked his big pagan cock for almost 1000 years.

>>8329764
>You know the scientific revolution? That can be considered as Aristotle winning the battle against Plato.
The scientific revolution is the West finally breaking free from Aristotle's intellectual box.

>>8328202
>He unironically said non-ironically

>>8328073
Without a philosophical education one isn't a scientist, but merely a craftsman, no matter the field he works in.

File: 1467395500032.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>8335990
Forgot picture

>>8335990
A philosopher who doesn't know mathematics and science is a fool no matter the field he works in.

>>8328073
Well, I don't know about reading all of that....

But you SHOULD study some of their philosophy to be a true scientist...

After all... what does the Ph stand for in Ph.d?