/lit/ - Literature

>>17435771
Yup he's retarded

>>17435771
European Philosopher here. Unironically, only the most radical physicalists/eliminativists and scientists are truly right.

But that form of "right" is boring and it's why I stick to philosophy. Philosophy is fun. It's fun to imagine the world as a complex, living and breathing thing, something that is beyond simple physics. But that's all it is. Fun. It's not real. I recognize that all my theories at the end of it all are not true but are just ceteris paribus approximations of a physical world through a metaphysical lens, but I try not to think about it. It's better to imagine the world as something magical and intangible instead of a collection of microscopic quantum-level binary systems (or maybe more than binary, due to things like superposition, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on this topic to pass judgments)

>>17435771
>But philosophy is dead.
Hawkings is dead.

I also exclude any STEM-field from my philosophical studies.

>>17435795
based

>>17435795
I buy into the scientific method more than a number of anons here, but I still doubt humanity's ability to conclusively prove anything "right" or "wrong." Plus, superposition and similarly complex physics-systems generally become so abstracted from perceived reality that they effectively are a form of metaphysics.

>>17435795
Continental "philosophy" truely is a disgrace, I am deeply ashamed to be associate to things like
>But that form of "right" is boring and it's why I stick to philosophy. Philosophy is fun.

>>17435771
>Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
Is there even anything of value to ontology in these """modern""" developments?

>>17435837
Of course not.

f.e. the big bang has been a fact in philosophy for 2000 years.

They are trying to catch up for years.

>>17435771
Physics is a philosophic discipline, like all sciences. And like all small-minded cultists, Hawking is no more important to philosophers now than a dockworker in ancient Greece was to Aristotle, with the primary difference being that the dockworker might actually be useful for something outside of his explicit field of expertise, on dint of bodily strength being an asset in multiple fields.

>>17435864
this. scientists are retards who don't understand the flimsy scaffolding of their own approach, models, and prejudices. this combined with many disciplines reaching their end and needing extreme conceptual revision and clarification means philosophy is needed now more than ever.

I don't know about this because in the end the scientists also end up doing a lot of philosophy. Maybe not your average labmonkey but at some point it's unavoidable. Maybe people in the sciences have picked up the torch, but that doesn't mean that philosophy died.

>>17435771
I can't look at pop science book covers now without remembering about how much of a fucking cunt one of my physics teachers in school was.
Mr Hardon Collider, if you're out there, fuck you.

>>17435837
>he said on a device literally only possible because of these modern developments
Hm...

>>17435800
>Plato was wrong
That's a very cold take there, anon.

>>17435800
aliveChad DABBING on crippleboi

>>17435819
The scientific method is a philosophically based ontological tool; scientists are just people like anybody else.

>>17435916
In academy, yes, philosophy is dead.

>>17435771
Lab rats belong in the lab, they're no good at thinking, writing or existing. No surprise there. It's hilarious that Hawking thinks "science" even scrapes the surface of ontology, lol.
>>17435795
Irredeemable hylic. Can't wait for the modern world to terminate itself, see how magical it is when you have to deal with tremendous food shortages then.
>>17435827
>"this time my binary table will finally solve the human condition for sure!"
>>17435837
No.
>>17435851
Retard.
>>17435906
>this. scientists are retards who don't understand the flimsy scaffolding of their own approach, models, and prejudices.
If scientists actually understood philosophy of science they'd deflate in a second.

>>17436077
>he didn't start with the greeks
how do you hylic bugmen even find /lit/?

>>17436079
You tell me, bugman.

>THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIST said that philosophy=bad, therefore I hate ALL scientists now
I hate you people sometimes

>>17436108
All scientists are either like this or total normtards, anon.

>>17436083
got linked to a /b/ thread on astral projection when talking about hermeticism on some now-dead bbs back in 2006, been here ever since.

>>17436113
>i have never talked to anyone in academia
It shows.

Solve the problem of universals scientifically.

>>17435906
I wouldn't go that far, but radical materialists who discount philosophy are definitely retarded. It's sort of like sawing off the branch that you're sitting on and expecting the tree to fall.

>>17436134
By here, of course, you must be referring to the sublunar sphere. You fucking hylic.
>>17436142
Found the stemcel lololololololol

>>17436077
>Retard.
Who is heraCLITus?

>>17436172
don't be so defensive about not having an internal monologue man, you'll get it eventually. but to do that, you're going to have to stop posting and start reading. remember when you were told to "start with the greeks"? that means you have to actually go read books.

>>17436177
This isn't about Heraclitus homeboy, it's about your inferiority complex and the fact that you feel a need for the classical world to beat physicists at their own game. In reality, the game is not worth playing.
>>17436207
Cope, cringe, seethe, dilate etc

>>17436228
>feel a need for the classical world to beat physicists at their own game.

I am simply accounting facts. Take determinism f.e.

>>17436311
Just saying that it's a bad approach to claim that classical thinkers "preempted" some "scientific theory".

>>17435771
Based
>>17435795
Based

>>17436077
>Irredeemable hylic. Can't wait for the modern world to terminate itself, see how magical it is when you have to deal with tremendous food shortages then.
this is a logically inconsistent, self-excluding message

>>17436172
>Found the stemcel
In the meantime, he earns a six figure income while you're a burgerflipper. But at least you're a morally superior burgerflipper! Oh the lies we tell ourselves not to feel utterly miserable ;)

>>17436392
I don't care homo, we're all gonna die.
>>17436412
Actually I'm living on Neetbux. Thank you for your sacrifice, anon! Someone needs to pay taxes, after all. :)

Science is a subfield of philosophy. So is ontology.

the crazy thing about the modern scientists (and I’m mostly referring to quantum physicists) is that they’ve created an entire of system of observation hinging on particles and waves...but most of the particles that they’ve observed have never been the input or output of any experiment, ever. a ridiculous amount of money goes to the collider in Europe, and they cannot pin down a single one of their particles, only back into it with mathematical description of the phenomena already observed. i imagine that the destiny of science is nothing more than increasingly refined technology that “proves” their correctness with brute force, but in reality they will all drive themselves insane with an infinite regression of imaginary particles

>>17436412
If money made you happy, why aren't you happy?

>>17436854
>a ridiculous amount of money goes to the collider in Europe, and they cannot pin down a single one of their particles, only back into it with mathematical description of the phenomena already observed.
Holy fuck is this true? I know about the crisis of science from reading on this topic, but I didn't think it was this bad.

>>17437086
It may or may not be this bad, but it depends on who's looking.

>>17437096
kek

>>17436113
Based grand sweeping generalizer with zero stats or proof to back you up

>>17437100
I know the foremost astrophysicist of my country and he's an unironic "hecking love science" materialist reductionist. I am also good friends with a burger biologist researcher and he's a super cute autistic weeb. All the scientists I've read about also fall under one of these two categories - for example Heisenberg and Bohr were based normies etc.

>>17437086

yes it is true

>>17437359
>every time I think clown world is all clowned out, it outclowns itself

Some time ago in a thread similar to this some anon shared a book that tried to prove that Kant's and Einstein's view on time are actually compatible but my dumb ass forgot to write the title down.

Anyone here knows what that book was?

>>17435795
>Unironically, only the most radical physicalists/eliminativists and scientists are truly right.
t. NPC

>>17435771

>>17435771
>tfw Stephen hawking was BTFOd by Spengler of all people
A cripple and a retard. Sad.

Hawking, Dawkins, Tyson, and the rest are the literal definition of pseudointellectuals and the epitome of everything wrong with the commodification and exaltation of science to the point of a cult. They have been told so many times by so many different people that theirs is the only art solely because its the most readily commodifiable that they actually believe it. They are as vain and naive---yet nevertheless inundated by such immense hubris---that they truly deserve their position as functional movie stars. If they had even a modicum of self-awareness, if they even possessed a shred of dignity, they would recognize that the "shoulders of giants" upon which they stand stand---as a result of their markedly unreasonable approach to logic---will be the highest peak western civilization will reach for they would laugh at your Descartes, Newton, Liebniz, Cantor, etc...

>>17437769
What a load of pseud pretentious garbage, and that's coming from someone who doesn't even buy the physicalist arguments
>>17437774
Heisenberg confirmed for not having read Plato. The rest are cool though

>>17437774
the dawkins and nye quote seem pretty reasonable, krauss and the grass are just straight up cringe though.

>>17435795
No, the further we dig ourselves into distancing metaphysics and science, the harder it will be to maintain our humanity.

>>17435771
Here is about as thorough of a takedown as you're ever going to see: https://perennialphilosophyreadings.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/response-to-stephen-hawkings-physics-as-philosophy-by-wolfgang-smith/

Of particular interest to those with a predilection for Traditionalist metaphysics.

>>17435771
he is retarded
>>17435795
and so are you

>>17437947
European Philosopher here.
The radically physicalist/eliminativist truth is that things like consciousness or humanity do not exist, but neither does life in general. It's all matter, and there's nothing beyond physics - an opposite assertion would be radically irrational and unscientific, on par with religion or the flat Earth, dont you think?

>>17438204
European Philosopher here.
It's impossible to debate materialismVSmetaphysics with a theist. It would be better to juxtapose an atheist materialist with an atheist metaphysician, in a debate.

>>17437947
"humanity"
spooked

>>17435827
godel called you retarded in the 1930's.

>>17435795
I really really doubt that you are a philosopher. Nigger.

>>17435906
based and kuhn-pilled

>>17435795
Mostly agree but;
>It's fun to imagine the world as a complex, living and breathing thing,
How is it not?
>It's better to imagine the world as something magical and intangible instead of a collection of microscopic quantum-level binary systems
How is this not magical and interesting? Why the fuck are there quantum-level binary systems at all? There is still room for philosophy because we still know too little. You still managed to anger the LARPers on /lit/ so based anyways, but seriously I hate this mentality that because souls are obviously not real and there's no christcuck afterlife this makes life soulless (heh) and uninteresting. How the fuck do you read about quantum physics and not find it extremely interesting? We haven't even seen anything yet. Fuck I hate christcucks so much.

>>17435795
>I'm not knowledgeable enough on this topic to pass judgments
Not often that retards so plainly and efficiently summarize themselves. Shut the fuck up

>>17437907
>that's coming from someone
Nobody asked, faggot. No one cares who you are. That doesn't make any statement more or less credible. Retard.

>>17435795
>physical
>Consciousness
Explain

>>17435771
kek, imagine honestly believing that Philosophy has to "keep up" with science

>>17435795
hmmm no?
like, who the fuck gave you your degree level of no??

>>17435837
Indispensability argument for platonism, special relativity's import for questions about the objectivity of the passage of time, causal exclusion wrt physicalism, etc.

Only the first is strictly "ontological" I suppose, but there's lots of points where physics makes contact with metaphysics.

>>17435771
Nah I am a learning STEM and from what I've seen most scientists suck at giving their discoveries any meaning. I found this and this means we can use it for this increasing production this much. No deeper thinking. No greater meaning. Only those at the top really try and intergrate philosophy sometimes but even that can be pretty bad and often boils down to just be carefull guys

>>17440204
Not him, but he's probably referring to all of the retards on here who simultaneously assume that "consciousness" is some physical thing that you can hold in your hands that somehow is not attached to the brain. This is obviously ludicrous because we've never observed this "consciousness" outside of a brain, and in any event the proponents of this "consciousness is a physical thing separate from the brain" theory will completely reject the idea of complicated plasmas or computers or large plant/fungi networks having "consciousness".

This is of course, not at all how human thought (or any living thing's thoughts, really) and the brain work, which gets into what >>17435837 was asking in that yes, there are absolutely massive developments that modern science has brought about that are philosophically important, earth-shakingly so. These developments have massive implications for epsitemology, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, etc. As >>17436070 pointed out, these go completely ignored because philosophy isn't actually about thinking and understanding the world, but rather rehashing existing arguments to offer intellectual support to some political cause (for example, Edward Feser and Alistair MacIntyre, who rehash Thomism to justify Social Justice and Decolonial Theory).

tl;dr you're an unironic retard wallowing in the dustbin of history if you believe any of the following
>the brain is a computer
>you're just a tiny man piloting a meat-mecha
>you aren't actually conscious because the brain is a radar dish

>>17435795
you deserve to be showed into a meat grinder.
disgusting charlatan.
>philosophy = love of knowledge
you're just a larping charlatan making shit up. all continental philosophers truly deserve death for crimes against thought.

>>17435771
>yes i can ignore the problems of epistemology and ontology if i just straw man philosophy
Lamo what a retard.

>>17435819
>I can keep asking why for eternity this means franco-german philosophy is justified and I can just pull shit out of my ass that's as valid as science
subhuman.

>>17435864
>Hawking is no more important to philosophers
>post-colonialist theorists don't care about you! take that bugman! they're busy writing for their own journals
you seriously think any of these real scientists actually care what a bunch of charlatan pseuds think about them?

scientists and materialists are living in the shade of a tree that they haven't planted and don't know how to water. I don't dislike them or pity them but I am acutely aware of the fact that these people are not useful beyond their little area of expertise. they can't keep a political coalition together and their thinking is literal poison if mainlined by the majority population

>>17436048
>The scientific method is a philosophically based ontological tool
this doesn't justify deleuze. this thread is about delezue and hegel and similar charlatans and the c/lit/cel pseuds seething that they're being exposed by honest men of science.

>>17436854
>I don't understand it so therefore they don't find anything
>>17437086
no retard. remember when they found the higgs boson.

>>17437762
yeah I think it's called mental gymnastics by coping mathematically illiterate continental charlatan.

>>17440618
>these people are not useful beyond their little area of expertise
seems more like you are talking about philosophers. Those people serve not much of a funtion anymore. Scientists still talk with companies and governments about future technologies and how to best apply them. Meanwhile all philosophers can do is post and complain on their blogs with a million outdated theories better men came up with.

>>17437086
its true, they want ten times more money now.

this fucking thread, jeez
/lit/ really is the stupidest board

>>17440618
and continental philosophers aren't useful at all.

>>17440663
>Those people serve not much of a funtion anymore.
everything of value comes from sacrifice. unselfish and unconditional gravitation towards the brightest point in your heart and soul. not everyone can reach this state but this is where great people operate. philosophers, theologians and priests are closer to this truth than materialists, which makes them more essential
shielding yourself from this fact is just that, a cope. no scientist or technology can save you, the problem is that they ask too little of you
>>17440696
they've done more for the flourishing of human consciousness than any scientist

>>17437086
>Holy fuck is this true?
No.

>>17435795
>Unironically, only the most radical physicalists/eliminativists and scientists are truly right
Could you prove that right now? Friendly reminder that particle physicists can't fully solve their own equations and cannot reconcile their two most successful models of reality.

>>17440714
>everything of value comes from sacrifice.
Wrong
You can sacrifice everything you want but if it has no use whatever that sacrafice brought to this world will be shoved aside.
everything of value comes from usefullness.
Scientist try to understand the world and through that understanding better it. All theologists and philosophers do is cope with sad ideas because they can't handle the world withoud them. They just convinced themselves into thinking what they do is needed while rotting away alive without doing anything or adding anything to the future. Scientists and technology have saved me when I was born and it has saved countless lives and it has ever greater questions still to be ansered. Science doesn't ask anything from you because you can use it for anything. Meanwhile philosophy asks evertything but saves no one and leads no where

>>17440714
>they've done more for inflating the self-confidence and academic job positions of mathematically illiterate pseudo-intellectual charlatans than any scientist
ftfy

>>17440766
Where does science lead?

>>17440401
>philosophy isn't actually about thinking and understanding the world, but rather rehashing existing arguments to offer intellectual support to some political cause
I feel like I'm coming to the same conclusion. However, politics will never die and will exist so long as humans do, and even if you are not interested in politics politics may eventually be interested in you. So one way or another you need to consider what you truly value and what kind of system you think governs best.

>>17440760
>hits your head with a hammer
Huh... You stopped thinking... Guess there really is a connection between the mind and the brain after all...

>>17440862
Literally no one denies there is a correlation, how exactly it occurs and functions is the actual debate

>>17440766
>Scientists and technology have saved me when I was born and it has saved countless lives
Why is that a good thing? Why should scientists have to waste time and effort keeping people who would've died without them on life support?

>>17440867
>Literally no one denies there is a correlation
Then why do you believe that there is no correlation between the mind and the brain?

>>17440766
>whatever that sacrafice brought to this world will be shoved aside.
this is the only place where real strength and resilience can be built
your inability to align yourself with what is right (unconditional love and humility) is a festering wound
>without doing anything or adding anything to the future
how do you think the great civilizations flourished? do you think that great art and metaphysical frameworks are afterthoughts? how do you think this stuff is cared for? with deep feelings and conviction
>asks evertything but saves no one and leads no where
so stay where you are, risk nothing, gain nothing
>>17440788
the world is full of scheming evil-doers and they'll probably never go away. that's not an excuse to stop looking for what is good

>>17440853
All of the greatest human accomplishments have come from science. The palaces of kings, electricity, the internet, nuclear power and the ability to go to the moon. In the future what we can achieve will only get bigger and as our goals get bigger so does the feeling of accomplishment. Every goalwe achieve will be surpassed and can be molded to however you want because of science. No amount of sitting in a room and thinking about what might or might not be will ever surpass that

>>17440875
Because preventing people from dying is a good thing?
Would you like it when you got stabbed and we left you just dying on the street?
Retarded luddite

>>17440920
>Because preventing people from dying is a good thing?
Why?
>Would you like it when you got stabbed and we left you just dying on the street?
Nope. But why should you not leave me dying?

>>17440902
dishonest charlatans, liars and confused thinkers like yourself do incomprehensibly more harm to the world than organized schemers.

>>17440920
>The palaces of kings, electricity, the internet, nuclear power and the ability to go to the moon. In the future what we can achieve will only get bigger and as our goals get bigger so does the feeling of accomplishment

Insignificant.

>no amount of worrying in a room and thinking....

Daydreaming/maladaptive dreaming

>>17440941
>>The palaces of kings, electricity, the internet, nuclear power and the ability to go to the moon. In the future what we can achieve will only get bigger and as our goals get bigger so does the feeling of accomplishment
>Insignificant.
>>no amount of sitting in a room and thinking....
>Daydreaming/maladaptive dreaming

>>17440932
>you dislike babies being tortured. that proves lacan and deleuze are more important than scientists!

>>17440885
I don’t, neither does the guy you were responding to. What the fuck are you on about?

>>17440941
>Insignificant
Say the person whose only controbution is repeating what people a few hunderd years ago said. There is nothing more Insignificant than a philosopher.

>Daydreaming/maladaptive dreaming
Whatever you call it it won't get you anywhere

>>17440932
Because it is the right thing to do. No insane book needed to explain it. Some things are good and some are bad. Saving people is good and explaining such things in detail will not improve anyones live or be usefull to anyone.

>>17440953
I don't like Lacan... Don't care much for Deleuze. Don't even think philosophers are "more important" than scientists.
I'm simply asking you how science can explain the reason for why saving people or not torturing babies is a good thing. If you can answer that scientifically (that is: without making value based judgements or resorting to morality) then... Idk, I guess you've solved philosophy then

>>17440969
>Because it is the right thing to do.
Can you explain that using the scientific method?

>>17440969
>Daydreaming/maladaptive dreaming whatever you call it it won't get you anywhere

To where? Is there anywhere to head?

>improve anyones live or be usefull to anyone.
If improve = happiness, consume Meth

>>17435771
>Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in scienc
More likely Steven Hawking has not kept up with modern developments in philosophy

>>17435795
8.5 Solid. Would (You) again.

>>17435795
Well sure stuff like Cavendish's and Cartesian metaphysics are clearly wrong, but Hegel's dialectics or Heidegger's ontology can quite easily be detached from physics and still have massive applicability to truth. Btw I'm a big Frege/Godel logic/analytic guy(majoring in Phil and Math).

>>17435795
(you)

>>17440862
This has nothing to do with radical eliminativism though. Descartes was a dualist and still believed the soul resided in the pineal gland, which means that by his own theory hitting someone with a hammer could also impair thinking. Are you saying you're a cartesian, anon?

>>17438468
Hegel did so as well back in 1806 in the introduction to the phenomenology.

>>17440987
this thread is about lacan and deleuze and other french and german charlatans vs science.

>how science can explain the reason for why saving people or not torturing babies is a good thing
no. eventually you have to decide on your values and then science of course is what helps you figure out what to do to achieve those values. and in figuring out your values is that philosophy? maybe. but does the necessity of philosophy justify philosophers?
to the extent that we have to "philosophize" we should aim to think as clearly, honestly and as precisely as possible. if we deny this there is no point in the activity in the first place. if there is no point to doing the activity properly there is no point to doing it at all. so we should be clear, honest and precise in our thinking.

now comes the philosophers. do they satisfy these criteria? does spending three years on nietzsche, hegel, lacan, deleuze etc really improve your ability to think clearly, precisely and honestly more than spending three years studying mathematics and science? I would argue no. I would argue that to the extent we need philosophy in society, continental philosophy does not help us in any way with this. in fact it is directly harmful.

Who would win?

>>17441030
>Hegel's dialectics or Heidegger's ontology can quite easily be detached from physics and still have massive applicability to truth
this is wrong. you can perform mental gymnastics to save your charlatan icon. it doesn't matter. it will still be wrong.

You people are missing the context, which is late 20th century philosophy.

During that period, scientists discovered quantum mechanics and molecular biology, and advanced technology to the level we see today.

Philosophers, on the other hand, did nothing. They argued about obscurantist garbage. It was the low point of philosophy, so these attitudes are totally justified.

>>17440987
You want an actual scientific awnser sure.
We are made to be social because that increases te chance of us surviving. Therefore we only use violence when we need to get something from another group. Even in ye olden times people did not often kill the woman for example they were just taken. Children were killed because biologically it is better to make your own offspring than that of another. So kill men and children and take the women. Ez stuff. through time however the ''tribe'' got bigger and bigger. it went to village to city to country and even continent. Now mix the basics of human emphaty which is usefull for us to have with these bigger tribes and no need anymore to kill others for resources and murder and war is looked down upon. If you want to know we we feel the need to save peolpe very simple. It makes us feel good about ourselves. We have a drive to save the people who belong with us and we feel good when we achieve this. This is also one of the reasons we care far less about people in other continets being abused or even the divide between eastern and western Europe. Different cultures creates a different ''tribe'' and so we choose our own people over them.

Not going to put everything in the scientific method because that would take way to long but I am sure you could find lot's of psychology and biologicall papers about these subjects


>>17440997
To where? Is there anywhere to head?
Nope but we keep ouselfs busy until we die and try and find some meaning. Philosophy is just one of those coping mechanisms but science actually makes life a little less shit for future generations.

>If improve = happiness, consume Meth
Nope because meth destroys your body and thus is not good for you. Methheads are not generally known to be the most happy people. Psychology explains mental happiness a bit more but biology also helps a lot in that area.
Plus there is no scientific reason to say that happiness = good per se. A lot of things which make you happy are bad for you when abused

>>17440920
>The palaces of kings, electricity, the internet, nuclear power and the ability to go to the moon
you're like a child, looking at the world and only seeing surface. your immaturity will not render you more toys
>>17440939
every choice you make will necessarily doom some people, especially when you're in a ruling position. don't speak about harm if you haven't seriously considered the implications of your actions. I can conceive of the world as an unrelenting massacre as well as any listless materialist, it's not really "difficult" to count stuff in cold blood

The problem with science is that it can't step back and ask what the meaning of its findings is without no longer doing science. Physics can supply the equations, the data, experiments, the calculations, but it can't say how that fits into the human experience. There is even a phrase used in physics attributed to physics N. David Mermin. In other words, don't wonder about the paradoxical and counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics, just plug in and do the equations because they are somehow magically good at determining the relevant measurements! Lobotomized in this way physics will never see the big picture without stepping outside the bounds of physics in the same way that you cannot tell what the outside of a building looks like from the inside.

>>17441116
>There is even a phrase used in physics attributed to physics N. David Mermin.
I forgot to include the quote lol. It's :
"Shut up and calculate!"

>>17436077
>Irredeemable hylic. Can't wait for the modern world to terminate itself, see how magical it is when you have to deal with tremendous food shortages then.
Yeah mate, gnosticism will feed the masses and not modern agriculture.

>>17441116
philosophy can't even choose a starting point, one would be better off just deferring to religion.

>>17441044
>this thread is about lacan and deleuze and other french and german charlatans vs science.
Pretty sure this thread is about Stephen Hawking's take on philosophy.

We don't "need" philosophy. Philosophy will never leave us so long as we can think abstractly about concepts like right and wrong, beauty, will, nature. Why do you even have these values that you hold? Do you believe that you're morality is the only true morality? You know, when you look back at history you realize that ideals, values and morality isn't exactly set in stone.

>>17441066
This doesn't really answer my question in any way. Why is killing children bad when we did the practice was ubiquitous in primeval times? where did this sudden empathy come from, where was it when we were killing babies? How is it "biologically better to make your own offspring than that off another" Why not keep the child and continue making babies for more manpower? Why did humans even seek to establish large societies? What, other than a Will to Power for example, was the driving force? Why did war suddenly become looked down upon? Do you also have a drive to save some random progressive because he belongs to the same tribe as you, even though he is a political enemy? How the hell do you even explain progressivism's prominence in the West? This is all very superficial and doesn't explain anything.

>Not going to put everything in the scientific method
Yeah, thanks for nothing i guess. I doubt you even what it means

>>17441164
>philosophy can't even choose a starting point
It literally just starts with some questions. What do you even mean by "starting point"?

>>17440956
Exactly this >>17441035 (which is a misunderstanding of Descartes, by the way).

>>17436077
EVERY SINGLE time I see someone using the word "hylic" here, it's always by a deranged psycho who is absolutely consumed with resentment and anger.

>>17441166
>Pretty sure this thread is about Stephen Hawking's take on philosophy.
these threads are always a proxy for pseuds who can't do math seething about "bugmen".
>We don't "need" philosophy. Philosophy will never leave us
this is an extremely bad argument for the social necessity of philosophers. because we know that some of the worst thinkers, some of the most confused people of all are professional philosophers. maybe we do philosophy much better without the philosophers. I would certainly listen to the opinions of a mathematician or a physicist on philosophical topics over someone who takes hegel or deleuze seriously. that shouldn't even be a question.

>>17441075
>don't speak about harm if you haven't seriously considered the implications of your actions
something it is absolutely certain you have never done, as there is no way to do so without being able to think. and you're clearly not able to think. at all.

>>17441347
Know I'm just curious what your definition of a philosopher is. How can you do philosophy without being a philosopher? You seem to have a lot of opinions on Deleuze and now Hegel. Have you by any chance read Hegel for yourself?

>>17441045
kek

>>17435771
>developments in science, particularly physics
>dude particles my dude1!11
>*some development later* MORE PARTICLEZ MY DUDEZ LOLL1!

such develop

>>17441066
>Plus there is no scientific reason to say that happiness = good per se. A lot of things which make you happy are bad for you when abused

Define good and bad(scientifically). If survival is the highest good, then the thief is good. The thief, murderer, all of them helped the human race to survive. They were an important part of the system.

>>17441347
>this is an extremely bad argument for the social necessity of philosophers
I wasn't even arguing for it, I don't think philosophers are "necessary". I wouldn't even say scientists are "necessary".
>because we know that some of the worst thinkers, some of the most confused people of all are professional philosophers
That's ultimately your opinion. Even then at least they had original ideas. I'm honestly not even sure what it is that you think. Apperantly philosophy is bad when it isn't being done by philosophers? You even seem to agree that anyone can do philosophy, and sure most people already know everything they need to get through their day but your average mathematician may not be willing to go any further than his own box allows him or even simply ask what is the meaning of good and evil.
Philosophy is a situation where you can certainly hate the player, but not the game. Because really, you don't, you play it all the time.

>>17441066
>but science actually makes life a little less shit for future generations.
Does it? How, considering so many people are feeling less and less happy than they did 50 years ago? Don't you think there's something else that's missing?

>>17435780
Fpbp

>>17440661
Glad to hear you've been finally published, Anon

>>17441553
>I don't think philosophers are "necessary". I wouldn't even say scientists are "necessary".
Intellectual dishonesty. we're clearly arguing in the context of contemporary society.
>french and german philosophy is superior to science because uhh even though we don't need french and german philosophy in current society we don't need scientists in nomadic hunter gatherer society sooooooo....
you have zero intellectual honesty. it's pointless for me to spend anymore time on you.
>>17441397
>what your definition of a philosopher is
lmao seriously. I'm clearly talking about philosophers as a class of people. I don't need to define them, you know exactly who I mean.
>can you define what you mean by "birds"?? oh you can't give an exact definition that covers every single case of a bird without including any non-birds? you don't know what birds are?? check and mate hihihihihihi
>uhhh no wait a minute how can you be against philosophers when you yourself become a philosopher when you think about certain questions uhh yeah we're all philosophers checkmate
intellectual dishonesty, mental gymnastics. pointless.

>>17441806
>you know who exactly I mean
No. "philosopher"is an empty word. Define it

>>17441066
>Nope but we keep ourselfs busy until we die
Does death exist? Prove it

>>17441806
Now you're just putting words into my mouth. You're a dog barking at things you do not understand

>>17435771
No man with a good multiverse needs to be justified.

>>17441806

you had me going until this post, too over the top

>>17438255
I agree with this. I was a pretty radical eliminativist until I just could not believe that consciousness could be eliminated, and also that it wasn't a single particle or basic physical property (still not a dualist though). Basically, the world is way more weird and complicated than you would expect.

>>17435795
You are literally projecting the boring character of people you know who talk about mathematics and physics and their clumsy dry jargon onto the universe. You can call it microscopic quantum-level binary systems or you could just as well call it the eternal principles in polar opposition birthing an endless and unfathomable vastness that gives rise to the periodic actualization of itself through the opposing cycles of life and death. Just because people nowadays have lost a sense of the poetic doesn't mean the world isn't the same divine thing the Greeks thought it to be.

>>17442359
maybe that wasn't the best example but you know what I mean. The soul-crushing character of today's sciences is primarily a linguistic and cultural problem imo. It's primarily the fault of academia

>>17441044
>Takes a long passage out of context, without any real criticism. Doesn't understand that the idea of transindividuation in a metastable milieu (following Simondon) is by no means a banal observation from the standpoint of ontology

>>17436228
Says a self admitted NEET
Cringe

>>17435771
Kinda related, but I've noticed that some reddit atheists get upset when they hear the word "scientism" and think it's made up by Christians despite the fact that it was Friedrich Hayek (social scientist) and Karl Popper (philosopher of science), both agnostic-atheists, who popularized that word.

>>17442724
Call them dogmatists and watch them really seethe