Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: betrand-russell-uncertainty.jpg (106KB, 640x360px)
106KB, 640x360px
>Explain why you can — and should — learn about physics and evolution from people other than Newton and Einstein and Darwin, but you can't learn about Heraclitean or Nietzschean philosophy from people other than Heraclitus or Nietzsche. Because scientific theories are relatively simple, and can be grasped by many, some of whom will be better at explaining them than those who were better at devising them — their creators — which latter, precisely because they were so good at devising them, will probably not be the best in the world at also explaining them.
>All of this goes out the window with philosophical theories, however, since these are so broad and simultaneously deep — they are so complex — that they can only be fully grasped by their creators and those above them — i.e. other, better philosophers than them, if such people even exist at all, which they often don't. It is therefore utter folly to expect anyone else — let alone mere scholars and popularizers — to be able to properly explain these theories, since they can't even grasp them — let alone explain them better than the people who created them; which is why subhumans expect precisely that.
>>
>>8754034
This post is dumb. Secondary sources are very common in philosophy.
>>
File: Nietzsche-274x300.jpg (26KB, 274x300px)
26KB, 274x300px
>No one will be as autistic as Neet-chan
>>
So basically what you're saying is philosophy is an art and not a science?
>>
>>8754034
>but you can't learn about Heraclitean or Nietzschean philosophy from people other than Heraclitus or Nietzsche.
His position seems to be that you also can't learn about them from Heraclitus or Nietzsche unless you're one of the smartest people in the world. In which case why should one bother with philosophy at all?
>>
>>8754034
Science is about the universe, philosophy is about ideas. You can only truly learn nietzschean philosophy from Nietzsche because it is about what was in his head.
>>
>>8754034
Irony: The philosopher that OP used for his image thought that matters of must inevitably subside to the sciences as our knowledge increases, thus the domain of philosophy is that of speculation.
>>
>>8754886
*matters of [philosophy] must inevitably subside to the sciences
>>
Is this the new variant of gorilla-posting?
>>
>>8754034
This is why philosophy majors end up doing anything but philosophy for the rest of their life and become comedians, because curious things are funny and you're funny for posting this. It is also easier to explain alternative concepts using your own words which are not standardized and are purposefully confusing not only to people but to the creator, making the illusion that the idea is complex to begin with. It is definitely closer to an art form than a science if that helps.
>>
File: university.png (55KB, 1812x588px) Image search:
[Google]
55KB, 1812x588px
>>8755190
>making the illusion that the idea is complex to begin with
Agreed, pic related
read bottom -> top
>>
>>8754067
>REEEEEEEEEEEE
>-The Gay Science
The people who enjoy his works are at least as autistic as he is.
>>
All I can do is wish I had not been born a dog.
>>
>>8755190
>It's different from science
No fuking shit, but obviously you closed minded fucks don't care about anything except science.
>>
>>8757473
So?
Leave us with our science.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3