/lit/ - Literature

Soulless.

>>22314924
>OP can’t do both STEM and philosophy and thinks the two are mutually exclusive
Why should I listen to your opinion?

>>22314932
Name a single solution to any problem in the world that will be solved with philosophy.
The only branch worth studying for that is political philosophy but even then, it's better to just cut out the middle man and learn science. I don't feel like wasting my time reading about jew economics and gay classical liberalism when I can study physics to find a way to escape this hell dimension.

>>22314939
Science philosophy enemy.
Scientist philosopher enemy.
You me enemy.

No one cares, retard.

I generally agree with you on ethics.

You aren't well read enough on political philosophy which is how you came to this conclusion, but your sentiment is appreciable.

Generally agree on some of your epistemological arguments.

Dead wrong on structure of the universe, now that you are a STEM fag you should read up on Fermi.

Mixed bag, nothing ventured so nothing lost.

Mathematical logic predates both of them, so does this mean you are wrong about your supposed expiration date on philosophy?

Congratulations, now that you are ascending to STEM mode you can get a job working for an aristocrat thinking things through for them so they don't have to. The people who gave us Euclid set us back, or so says someone who is ascending to a math field? Interesting. Godspeed anon!

>Only read anarchists who want to be left alone and leave you alone too.
This would preclude massive power-knowledge structures like modern institutional science too.

>Epistemology is engaged in by people too lazy to engage in practical experimental science,
Experimentalism is an epistemology.
>so they make a whole philosophical system to "prove" that certain things are beyond the scope of human understanding.
Speaking about what is and isn't beyond human understanding is epistemology. Your "meta"-epistemological take on epistemology is just more epistemology, and any response to it would be epistemology. This is why epistemology is both necessary and inevitable. "Systems" are just particularly grand attempts to derive first principles of the knowability of the world. Modern experimentalism arose with Bacon and Galileo through a priori deductions and from the epistemological observations that (1) Aristotelian science had been naive despite thinking it was merely observational and as presuppositionless as possible (just as modern science does), and (2) institutions (like modern science or the medieval scholastic universities) can become complacent and fixated in given epistemological frameworks and cease questioning and testing them. Such reflections eventually generated modern philosophies of scientific epistemology like Kuhn's critique of "normal science," which is an epistemological critique.

>Kant might be the biggest pseud who ever lived.
Kant's "system" was derived from what he thought were pure and apodeictic observations of the conditions of rigorous thinking. The responses he generated practically created modern science indirectly, at a time when it had become stagnant due to dogmatic French materialism and English naive empiricism and physicalism (more examples of a form of "normal science" that ceases to be tested and meaningfully developed).

>The correct metaphysical structure of the universe will most likely be some version of monism.
How can you "practically, experimentally" intuit the unity of reality? There's a guy named Kant who had some interesting thoughts on how whenever we think scientifically about the world, we posit the world a priori as an internally orderly whole or monad. Even unlearned and savage minds seem to do this, and all sorts of scientific norms and views are expressed within the basic assumption that the world is a logically and causally orderly whole. The question then becomes: Do we merely presuppose this order? And if so, what then is its epistemic status, i.e. its status as "knowledge" with scientific value? I believe questions like these are called epistemology.

>>22315033
>There is more wisdom in the 100 or so fragments of Heraclitus than the entirety of Plato.
Heraclitus the metaphysician and mystic who believed in direct intuitive access to the structures of nature, which have to expressed metaphorically and elliptically because there is no way ordinary discursive language can contain or signify them transparently, i.e., logically?

>The exact point that philosophy ended was during the formulation of mathematical logic by Frege.
Frege very well may have been a Leibnizian rationalist and platonic realist with regard to logical entities and structures. The fact that this is ambiguous from his writings show that they are not perfectly transparent and thus not ideally logical, showing the limits of logic. The purely linguistic interpretation of Frege's logicism, which most people are thinking of when they mention Frege, culminated in the Vienna school of logical positivism and its English admirers, all of whom were substantially in dialogue with Kant via the "epistemological" school of neo-Kantianism which mostly concerned itself with philosophy of science. Wittgenstein's critique of this school and its assumptions is actually close to some the views expressed in your post, because he mainly says that logic can never become the neo-Leibnizian "reasoning machine" the logical positivists wanted it to be, and that actual life, organic language, and thought will always exceed and precede any logical formalization of themselves.

>Philosophy in general was started by Greek aristocrats
So was modern experimental science, if you count wealthy bourgeoisie and those with aristocratic patronage. Locke's patron was famously the Earl of Shaftesbury. Bacon was a viscount. Newton had noble patronage his whole life. But the real reason English society produced so many geniuses over the last 400 years is that it maintained an incredibly stable social equilibrium in which 80-90% of the population was basically workers and servants who faded into the background while well-established wealthy families like the Darwins and Galtons could live lives of "leisured service" to the nation by devoting themselves entirely to their research and scholarship. The English nobility became the peerage, which is paradoxically semi-meritocratic, semi-oligarchic. The class divide was brutally rigid for centuries. Basically anyone in the upper orders was guaranteed a good education and vocation, but if you didn't have access to that education you were more or less seen the way ancient Romans saw slaves: the background NPCs making up 90% of daily life, the people who get your wine or tea so you can keep working, whom you may live dearly but there's no mistaking that they are servants.

>>22315038
Whereas in Greece, the aristocrats you mention were really people who had just enough of an estate to free them from artisanry, but usually not enough to live well without at least some additional effort, so they tended to survive through royal or wealthy patronage, constant travel (exploiting xenia, aristocratic guest-friendship), and selling their services, either directly (as the sophists) or indirectly (by setting up "circles of friends," which is probably what many of the pre-Socratics did). They probably had much smaller estates and patrimonies than many of the heroes of modern experimental science.

>It set the trend that solutions to things can be achieved solely by "thinking it through" instead of actually getting up from your chair and doing something about it.
Almost all of the pre-Socratics did experimental and mathematical science of some kind. They were called "phusikoi," nature-men, men preoccupied with phusis (nature) or phuseis (natures, i.e., of things). Anaxagoras had a school in Athens, while Leucippus and Democritus had a school in Abdera where they did very practical observational and mathematical work. Plato's Academy gathered phusikoi of all kinds, especially mathematicians, like Eudoxus of Cnidus and obviously Aristotle, who did their own "scientific" work under Plato's aegis. Aristotle spent decades doing practical observational and experimental work and was like the Herodotus of naturalism, which is why he's often called the father of biology, botany, etc. He also had a school and some of his pupils are among the first real systematic naturalists in history, like Theophrastus and Eudemus of Rhodes.

>The Greeks were a disaster for western civilization and set us back hundreds of years.
Basically every single term and concept in philosophy, science, and logic comes from the Greeks directly or at least indirectly. Including the terms philosophy, science (a Latin calque of theoria), and logic.

>>22314924
>Ethics is bullshit and writing about it is pointless.
>Spinoza probably came the closest to how reality truly is.
You hold both of these opinions at the same time? Go play with your integrals and conic sections

>>22315052
"If philosophy is not concerned with how to live one's life, then what the hell is it concerned with?"

>>22314924
sorry mate, you're actually very arrogant and your post is embarrassing. Any undergrad could tear it apart

>>22314939
read Heisenberg and Bohr

>>22314924
Wow your takes are those of that idiot WhatIfAltHist poser. You guys should be friends.

>>22315175
this, also he forgot the trigger warning, I am literally shaking right now

>>22314924
>stemfag thinks he's too clever for philosophy
>fails to understand he's just smart enough for it
>doesn't say anything of substance
Are you under 18 by chance?

>>22314924
have fun selling your soul to satan

1) wrong

2) possibly but that's what makes it great

3) science can't prove anything because of the replication crisis

4) no, dead wrong

5) apples and oranges

5) logic can't explain anything beyond what is known. things like feelings, opinions, decisions go beyond that

6) possibly but even then, if you decided to engage in STEM back then you'd rightfully be called a demon, which should still be done today.

>>22315263
that guy is only funny for his edgelord takes on society, he makes a far better sociologist and historian. philosophy is out of his reach.

>>22314932
low IQ tards like OP think STEM and humanities are enemies of each other or somehow contradictory, and that one is "real" and one is "subjective". In reality pretty much every person of significance in history had interest in both and often worked in both.

>>22315455
STEM as we tend to consider it is the enemy of the humanities. Consider the difference between how a poet and an astrophysicist conceive of the stars. They’re not definitely mutually exclusive, but probably are.

>>22315657
You're retarded.

>>22314924
Are you one of the engineering majors whose leg is always jittering, or one of the ones that can’t look people in the eye? STEM won’t help you relax, and neither will the alcohol or the weed.

>>22315695
You're retarded.

>>22315657
read Poe's Eureka

>>22316007
That’s not science.

>>22314939
Why do you care about solving problems with philosophy when your dilettante floundering with theoretical physics will help just as few people. You’re just substituting abstract propositions for abstract equations. Whoop de fucking do.

>>22315041
>>22315038
>>22315033
How are you so learned…

>>22315175
Go ahead and "tear it apart" then :)

>>22314939
stem will be the thing creating the hell dimension

>>22314924
Based. Welcome aboard, new fellow STEM Chad!

I have to disagree with two of your points though.

1. Metaphysics has nothing to do with Parmesan's or Spinach's outdated mysticism. Metaphysics is exclusively studied by physicists and mathematicians nowadays. You need a good grasp of quantum mechanics, relativity, stochastic processes, formal logic, computability theory etc etc. Pathetic philosoplebs have been cucked out of their own field.

2. Philosophy didn't die with the introduction of formal logic. Philosophy was never alive to begin with. In ancient Greece already we had STEM Chads like Archimedes or Euclid on the one hand and useless talkers/dreamers like Aristotle on the other hand. Literally the only achievement of philosophy was to hold back scientific progress throughout the dark ages with its retarded dogmatism.

>>22314924
I came to these conclusions as well. However I ended up despising science and now spend my days engaged in making art.

>>22317309
t. engineer

>>22317309
>metaphysics requires understanding of quantum physics
As a physics majoring engineer, I hate the abomination you and your fellow STEMtards have become.

>>22314924
>Ethics is bullshit and writing about it is pointless.
preach stemsister

>>22317348
What are philosophers doing to prevent this? Oh wait, they support all this dystopian bullshit. Just remember how all these "ethics councils" during the pandemic advocated for discrimination of unvaxxed citizens.

>>22317348
Ahh, the technological, poat-scarcity utopia is just about to come. Materialism is great. I will willingly suspend myself to brain scans, everything that maximizes productivity is good.

>>22314924
based

>>22314924
Let me know when you turn 18

>>22314939
Technology has never “solved” a problem. Ever. It’s only ever made the solution more distant.

>>22314939
This reply is funny because it reveals the psychology beneath the drive for STEM. You really feel that life and the world it happens it is a problem to be solved. It’s about living the Revenge of the Nerds fantasy.

>>22317395
let’s see if you hold this mentality when you’re working as a slave building new pyramids for our alien overlords, subhuman

>>22317370
Challenge a mathematician - he will respond with a proof. Challenge a scientist - he will respond with facts. Challenge a philosopher - he will respond with an infantile insult. This is the pinnacle of a 3000 year intellectual tradition. Embarrassing.

>>22317395
If you said something along the lines of "control" you could have, perhaps, said something of value.
This way it was pure projection.

>>22317408
>facts

>In the philosophy of science, observations are said to be "theory-laden" when they are affected by the theoretical presuppositions held by the investigator.

>Theory-ladenness poses a problem for the confirmation of scientific theories since the observational evidence may already implicitly presuppose the thesis it is supposed to justify. This effect can present a challenge for reaching scientific consensus if the disagreeing parties make different observations due to their different theoretical backgrounds.

>>22317395
Normal people:
>I ask a question because I want to know the answer.
Philosoplebs:
>We intentionally make our questions nonsensical and unanswerable so we can spend the next millennia publishing wordcel salad. But this is totally deep and meaningful.

>>22317407
I think if the best reply you can muster is a fantasy about feudalism but with aliens then you may as well just reaffirm what I said and avoid the embarrassment.

>>22317412
Use your brain. It’s not only about control. It’s literally about flight from the way things are. There’s affinity between the E in STEM and the T in LGBT but that’s an uncomfortable point for the Engineers.

>>22317408
I don't see any facts or proof in this thread.

>>22317419
This is called a strawman my philosophically challenged friend.

>>22317415
"Thing falls down." How is this theory-laden?

inb4 some infantile gibberish answer like "hurr durr you must theoretically assume that existence exists"

>>22317420
> I think if the best reply you can muster is a fantasy about feudalism but with aliens then you may as well just reaffirm what I said and avoid the embarrassment
Do you disagree that the nature of existence is competition and survival? Even if aliens don’t arrive, we still have to deal with our own species. If we don’t advance in technology, then others will, and we will be destroyed. Philosophizing all day won’t do shit. You only need philosophy to clarify your goals, and that’s it.

>>22317428
Because it's a philosophy thread. According to philosophers the notion of facts and logic is just an oppressive construct by the cis-patriarchy.

>>22317431
It's exactly what you said. According to you the job of philosophy is not to answer questions.

>>22314924
>here's a few observations I've made
What you list below aren't observations.

>>22317440
I'm challenging a scientist right now. Where are the facts that your worldview is correct?

>>22317439
If you were a philosopher, I’d know exactly what you mean by “the nature” but my experience with scientists is that they commit word-concept fallacies all the time and try to use them as “gotchas” so I would say that you’d have to be more specific about what exactly you mean when you say “the nature”.

>>22317448
Which worldview specifically, Mr Strawman?

>>22317439
It also doesn’t follow that if we don’t advance technologically that others will. The basis of industry is the revolution of the piston in the combustion engine, but that’s a movement that occurs nowhere in nature. I know you’d like to believe that technological innovation is natural, but in reality it’s overcoming and dominating nature, which is in fact not natural. That’s not a value judgement by the way, but rather a statement of what is the case.

>>22317461
The one in the OP.

>>22317463
> I know you’d like to believe that technological innovation is natural, but in reality it’s overcoming and dominating nature, which is in fact not natural
you’re retarded. Humans are a part of nature, subhuman. Your kind will be replaced.

>>22317439
Why don’t we bomb the sentinelese?

>>22317444
Philosophy is not a job. You’re failing to identify the unquestioned presuppositions built into your challenges.

>>22317470
I'm not OP. Your verbal IQ must be quite low if you can't tell anons apart by their writing style. OP already presented a lot of facts though. You don't expect me to repeat them, do you?

>>22317476
Is the combustion engine part of the human?

>>22317484
Their writing styles are close enough to be the same poster, given that neither of you have really said all that much. And no, he presented zero facts, only many unscientific opinions. Again, I'm waiting for facts or proof.

>>22314924
Soulless bugman. Please go back to masturbating with a language model instead of attempting human communication, thank you.

>>22317481
Terrible wordcel post. I have to doubt your literacy. Nobody was calling philosophy a job. The expression "the job of philosophy" is clearly talking about purpose and not about wagie work.

>>22317419

>>22317478
several reasons. Preserving genetic/cultural diversity is one, the lack of necessity is another. One day we may find that they are extremely important to us, so it is better to just leave them alone for now in isolation.
>>22317487
Obviously not, but it is a rearrangement of nature by humans, which are a part of nature. I don’t know why you’re being so pedantic with this word. I simply said that life is characterized by much competition, and now you want to quibble about what “nature” means. You’re a philosopher alright

>>22317501
So why would aliens not think similarly about earth ?

>>22317498
Science:
>try to make complex mechanisms as easily understandable as possible to advance our collective knowledge
Philosophy:
>try to formulate utter trivialities as pretentious as possible in order to LARP as smart

>>22317501
How does it logically follow that is nature? If this “rearrangement” occurs nowhere naturally in the natural world, how can it possibly be nature? I know it’s convenient for you to say I’m being pedantic and that I should just accept your assertions, but I don’t. And you didn’t say it was characterized by it. You said it was “the nature”, presumably in the same way that Christians say the nature of Christ. But that obviously makes no sense and this is exactly what I meant when I said that scientists use word concept fallacies all the time and then expect you to just concede the point to them because they abused language. You want me to agree with you, presumably on the basis that it’s logically to do so, but you won’t even use language in a manner that is logically consistent.

>>22317498
Uhm sweaty, the difference is that the topics of philosophy are not complex. Once you see through the wordcel salad they're actually nothingburgers.

>>22317420
>Use your brain. It’s not only about control. It’s literally about flight from the way things are. There’s affinity between the E in STEM and the T in LGBT but that’s an uncomfortable point for the Engineers.
More projection, are you really this much of a faggot?
Control is about safety, not inherently "flying away from how things are".
However your extrapolations are indeed interesting, they shed light on what it is you're projecting.
>There’s affinity between the E in STEM and the T in LGBT but that’s an uncomfortable point for the Engineers.
>It’s literally about flight from the way things are
So you're a faggot but you're uncomfortable with it. Good to know, go suck a dick you'll feel better.

>>22317491
Let's do this once again for slow people like you. Do you agree with the following?

Philosophy is useless if we can establish that all of its branches are useless. A branch is useless if it is nonsensical or obsolete.

>>22317515
I clearly disagreed with you and implied that control isn’t the drive but only a characteristic displayed by the drive, but that clearly went over your head. To be perfectly clear, I believe that control is only a pre-requisite condition that has to be fulfilled in order to flee from nature. A tranny has to control their hormones to flee from their gender but the drive for control and the drive to be a woman are not the same thing.

>>22317506
We don’t know what they will think. Either way it is better to be superior to them, so that we may decide our own destiny. The sentinelese don’t have much potential as it stands, but we do. If aliens kept track of us, they wouldn’t just let us become more powerful than them. This gives me hope that maybe our scientific progress is much beyond what is publicly known.
>>22317510
it is human nature to invent things. It is human nature to compete. By extension all competition and invention are natural. Now fuck off.

>>22317524
>it is human nature to invent things
Based on what?

>>22314924
there are enough midwits in STEM we don't want you here

Not sure why STEM types want to comment on philosophy.

>>22317541
It’s necessary for them to dismiss philosophical questions because of the questions are valid, then many of the presuppositions go the scientist and engineer would be misguided at best.

>>22317519
No, or at the very least I would ask you to define "useless" in a way that doesn't simply beg the question (because I know you will immediately resort to a particular type and therefore definition of usefulness - the type that you like and prefer, to the exclusion of all other kinds of use).

>>22317542
Philosophy is it's own field.
Scientific outlook on the world is also based on a particular philosophy. So they won't argue philosophy away without philosophy.

>>22317523
I know you disagreed, I wasn't trying to reconcile with you but to correct you, for the second time.
Since you insist on being a dense motherfucker, why do you suppose a person "runs from how things are"? How are you content with stopping your investigation on a literal cliffhanger? WHat is it that they're running away from or towards?
The point is it's safety, and control enables a sense(even if false), of safety.
But please do insert another random lgbt... parallel because they're occupying your mind so much you simply have to get them out!

>>22317511
Yeah, and once you see through the mathcel salad, you also see that physics is a nothingburger which says nothing about actual reality.

>>22317546
I gave you two possible conditions to establish uselessness: Obsoleteness or nonsensicality.

>>22317391
Did irrigation not solve the problem of poor crop growth without a consistent supply of water? Hell, agriculture itself is arguably a "technology," in that it's a human-directed shaping of the natural environment to arbitrary ends.

>Ethics is bullshit and writing about it is pointless
>Discusses ethics

>>22317581
No, it didn’t.

>>22317507
When was the last time you read anything remotely scientific that satisfied your description of science?

>>22317548
It’s not. Science is a part of philosophy. Scientists just misguidedly dismiss certain philosophical questions. Consider how many empiricists will tell you it’s logical to not accept anything for which no empirical evidence exists and then ignore that there is no empirical evidence for logical principles. They just won’t allow the question to be raised because it undermines dogma. That’s it.

>>22317507
>try to make complex mechanisms as easily understandable as possible to advance our collective knowledge
That's new. Kek.
Didn't know that scientists were some sort of knowledge discoverers that we look up to to get our "collective knowledge" expanded. Same as priests then, I guess.

>>22317593
Just recently I read a good paper about neurological vaccine injuries.

>>22317569
"Obsoleteness" is effectively the same, and therefore just as meaningless, as "useless." Therefore you are merely stating a truism. You have to be specific with what you mean by useless, or obsolete, because both of them can be interpreted to mean different things depending on one's perspective.

>>22317352
How did you come to the conclusion that those councils were acting wrongly?

>>22317550
I can only speculate but I think it’s culturally conditioned and not biologically determinist. Some conditions and feelings are biological, but the drive to flee from nature by dominating nature is not. You don’t find this drive in the ancient Chinese for example. But these are philosophical questions which scientists won’t even let you ask. They want you to just accept that this thing which doesn’t occur in nature is natural and universal to all humans for no particular reason.

>>22317586
This, kek. OP and STEM dyels BTFO by using philosophy to discuss the merits of ethics & philosophy vis-a-vis (((science)))

>>22317599
Okay, point taken.
In the end, scientist always need a philosophical outlook in order to interpret whatever it is that they're inquiry is concerned with.

>>22317606
I did not say meaningless, you fucking wordcel. Obsolete means it has been superseded by something else is therefore not worth pursuing anymore. I will not further engage with infantile language games. I see them as your desperate attempts to deflect because you're too much of a coward to deal with the actual arguments.

>>22317607
By my own experience as a victim of their policies.

>>22317601
Priests don't expand knowledge. They do the opposite. Priests expand ignorance. Just like philosophers.

>>22317643
Yes, that's what I was saying.
Scientists don't somehow magically expand knowledge.

>>22317675
500 years ago nobody knew how electricity worked. Today most people other than you know it. You can quit pretending to be retarded. It's unhealthy.

>>22317694
Sure, I'm glad everyone knows the "how" in the working of electricity. Except no. For most people, electricity "just is". They have no idea about how it works unless they work with (experience is the only thing that leads to knowing). They may have heard someone explaining it to them in elementary school or something, but that's not knowledge.

>>22317626
>I did not say meaningless
I did not say you did. You clearly misunderstood my post. If you want to simply leave the discussion under that pretence, be my guest.

>>22317708
>For most people, electricity "just is"
Even for phycisists, electricity "just is." The only difference is they know how it interacts quantitatively with its environment. Science is incapable of explaining why anything exists.

>>22317716
True, that's why the preaching is akin to those of priests. I'm thinking Richard Dawkins and the like.

>>22317708
>experience is the only thing that leads to knowing
Factually wrong. You don't need to experience sex to know how it works. It is possible to become a leading expert in sexology by watching hundreds of thousands of hours of porn.

>>22317722
>Factually wrong
This has got to be one of the most interesting word salad phrases out there.
>You don't need to experience sex to know how it works.
You do. If you don't experience sex and only watch it, you become knowledgeable in what sex looks like on a screen. Not on what sex is.
>leading expert
There is no such thing.

>>22317732
>If you don't experience sex and only watch it, you become knowledgeable in what sex looks like on a screen. Not on what sex is.
No difference. Someone who can write textbooks on sex, can perfectly describe all positions, the anatomy, all fetishes etc is clearly knowledgeable. I could give lectures in university about sex and students would think "This guy is an expert".

>>22317762
>No difference
Kek
>Someone who can write textbooks on sex, can perfectly describe all positions, the anatomy, all fetishes etc is clearly knowledgeable.
No, someone who experienced is knowledgeable. What you describe is just creating an illusion of being knowledgeable.
>I could give lectures in university about sex and students would think "This guy is an expert".
Sure, they may buy into the illusion. That's what happened during our beloved covid years. People just buying into "expert said this, expert said that". Has nothing to do with knowledge.
Knowledge is direct experience. Everything else is wordplay, illusions, non-sense.

>>22317772
>Knowledge is direct experience
How did you experience that licking a public toilet is not a good idea?

>>22317622
That’s correct but they often think otherwise. They think scientism IS the philosophical outlook. I blame pragmatism personally.

>>22317643
The only reason you think this is because scientists deal with the seen while priests deal with the unseen. You actually expect natural evidence for the necessarily supernatural, which is pretty fucking stupid.

>>22317781
>How did you experience that licking a public toilet is not a good idea?
I was never drawn to do it. Not particularly interested in experiencing that. Probably has something to do with disgust sensitivity.
>>22317783
Yeah, it's just a religion.

I like philosophy because it lets people do stuff like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhuYDHuSKRI whereas scientists consistently get disproven every 20 years. The speed of light has changed like 4 times in the last 100 years lol

>>22317796
So you don't know it? Well, you should try it. I lied btw. It is a good idea and actually a pleasant experience.

>>22317807
>So you don't know it?
Don't know what? You better say what good means in that sentence. Can't trust sciency types to get such words right either, kek.
Anyway, I told you that it's only about direct experience, so why would I take into consideration whatever it is that you have to say? It's my call to do whatever, including be drawn to experience or not experience things.
Or you somehow think that we need to be told about all that is good and bad for us else we are lost and start licking toilets here and there? Kek.
Also, we do have mechanisms that helps us kind of.. orient ourselves in the world.

>>22317817
>I willfully decided to remain ignorant
Not my problem you don't want to gain that knowledge.

>better say what good means
I used the word "good" with its generally agreed upon standard definition from ethical philosophy. As a philosopher you're surely aware of it.

>>22317829
>I used the word "good" with its generally agreed upon standard definition from ethical philosophy.
Except in all ethics there is no such generally agreed upon definition.
>As a philosopher you're surely aware of it.
I'm not a philosopher.

>>22317834
>Except in all ethics there is no such generally agreed upon definition.
How do you know? How did you experience this?
>I'm not a philosopher.
We can tell from your ignorance of basic philosophical concepts.

>>22317847
>How do you know?
... Hmm, let's see. So if a definition is agreed upon, it is agreed upon by people that talk and write on those things. There are people that talk and write on those things and they hold views that are different from one another. It's almost as if people can talk about views they hold and those views describe their own personal beliefs, views, opinions. And it's also as if when two people disagree on a given topic, then it may seem like it maybe be the case that their views differ on topics such as ethics.
>How did you experience this?
By licking the toilet, obviously.

>>22317860
So you admit that ethics is completely worthless as a field of philosophy because it is entirely subjective?

>By licking the toilet, obviously.
This plausibly explains the quality of your post.

>>22317870
>So you admit that ethics is completely worthless as a field of philosophy because it is entirely subjective?
No, even though I'm not really interested in ethics. Exchanging opinions and definitions of ethics is just a wordplay and illusion creating game though, sure.
>This plausibly explains the quality of your post.
Kek, I love how you hold back to not say anything of your own except to try to make these little shots.

>>22317541
It’s kind of like a Freudian slaying of the father combined with indignation at the fact that they’re just smart enough to understand basic philosophical procedures like chains of epistemic priority, the necessity of a metaphysical system, etc yet are not smart enough (or more often simply too lazy to engage with complex thought) to see how it all comes together. After you’ve gotten past the honeymoon phase with philosophy most people realize the value in having several contrasting systems to analyze the world with, but for the STEMbrain that is anathema. They want to be told the truth and not have to find it themselves and that often leads them to the most dogmatic of disciplines: engineering. I have 3/4ths of an engineering degree and can speak to just how narrowly structured and frankly simple all of the truths they get told are. Torque is this, mass is this, X is Y, A is B, etc. Reflexivity is a concept which is unknown to them. And yet, when you push them, they begrudgingly admit to a very simplistic logical positivism because they realize the necessity of a philosophical foundation in the same way they realize the necessity of X is Y. For the smarter ones who realize it, every indicator at the bottom of their discipline points to the superiority of philosophy. Tying it back into the Freudian theme this is why it’s a slaying of the father. They cannot do it because it’s literally impossible for them, and they cannot not do it because it hurts their pride (STEM “people” have egos like the sun) to admit that they’re not smart enough to have the full Truth (the mother).

>>22318308
I'm not really into Freudian thought, but I enjoyed reading this. I'm the anon that went into the whole "only direct experience is knowledge" exchange.
To me this whole conflict only serves to show that there is no knowledge. It's just throwing words and illusions at one another, and by that trying to solve that internal conflict. It's fundamentally a projection. It has nothing to do with knowledge, unfortunately.

>>22317408
>Challenge a mathematician - he will respond with a proof.
Funnily every mathematician I've ever met has been pro-philosophy. It's only undergraduates and occasionally graduates/pop-sci guys who hate philosophy.
>>22317541
Because they were never encouraged to think, just calculate and problem solve. It's like a fragment of the Tetris Effect.
>>22317548
>>22317622
You should read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". He delves deeply into how scientific fields work based on unchallenged metaphysical presuppositions.
>>22317783
Blame Logical Positivism not Pragmatism (although I hate both). Logical Positivism was so pro-natural science that I imagine a lot of scientists latched onto it.

>>22318912
>Funnily every mathematician I've ever met has been pro-philosophy.
Let's invalidate this :) I'm a mathematician and I'm anti philosophy.

>>22318922
What field do you work in?

>>22315033
>>22315038
>>22315041

This much effort posting in a random bait thread, slow Saturday I guess

>>22314924

>>22317581
>he didn't read Ted K
many such cases, very sad

>>22314924
>>22317309
>>22317408
Tell me you took the vaxx without telling my you took the vaxx

>>22315033
>>22315038
>>22315041
OP irremediably and utterly btfo

>>22314939
>Name a single solution to any problem in the world that will be solved with philosophy.
life

>>22317419
>How does one live a good life?
>Are there limits to what a human can understand? What are those limits?
>Is there an ideal system for humans living together en masse?
>Why does a flower inspire a mood different from a storm?
These are pretty basic questions anon, and all of them more or less form the basis of the different branches of philosophy.

>>22315033
>>22315038
>>22315041
How do I achieve this power? How many years?

This is the board for literature, why are you talking about philosophy here?

>>22319922
Because philosophy is literature and this board historically has included philosophical discussion.

>>22319925
Philosophy isn't literature

>>22319935
Oh yeah? How isn't it?

>>22314924
>your own intellectual journey.
Pride keeps you from God.

>>22314924
You're going to love failing engineering.

>>22319715
>How does one live a good life?
By owning nothing, living in the pod and eating the bugs.
>Are there limits to what a human can understand? What are those limits?
You don't need to understand things. Just trust the experts. They understand.
>Is there an ideal system for humans living together en masse?
15 minute city with CBDC and social credit system.
>Why does a flower inspire a mood different from a storm?
Source for this claim?

>>22319715
>subjective question
>cognitive science question
>economics/game theory question
>neuroscience question
Thanks for more evidence how obsolete philosophy is.

>>22314939
math is philosophy

>>22319945
Ironic coming from a faggot christcuck wojak

>>22320844
Math and philosophy are polar opposites.

Math
>rigorous
>establishes eternal truths
>provides objective proof
>is undeniable convincing

Philosophy
>subjective
>u cannot know nuffin
>source: my ass
>demands blind ideological belief

Based and so true. I approve.

>>22320850
What are some books that explore the midwittery of the gaytheist monkey? You know, the know-it-all pseuds who unironically think their ancetors were magic monkeys and magic fish which magically came from a rock which magically came from nothing.

What's a good book that explores why these absolute retards who believe in magic fish that transform are always wrong about everything and can only defend their blind faith religious beliefs by censorship because they're cowards?

>>22320897
Cry harder, chudley

>>22314939
If you fall in love with the wrong woman, which I have, only stoicism, or another similar pilosophy, can save you from yourself. More pertinent to my life, I'm always falling in love, than any scientists study on how love works at a biological or molecular level. Art and Philosophy save you from narcissistic hoes not STEM, so many sciencetards falling for a Bovary without a clue the danger their happiness faces. Some people aren't trying to discover the keys to creation but instead want to learn from other people's mistakes, real or fictional. Marrying wrong is laughably common, and when it's up to just you what knowledge can you command to pull your life successfully from the blind chaos overruled by duplicitous animals.

>>22320903
Stoicism is buck-broken soiboi cope. "My wife just cheated on me with a BBC but it totally doesn't affect me emotionally because I'm such a stoic."

>>22320910
Stop watching porn

>>22314939
>name any problem that will be solved
“Problems” are just self serving delusions that world doesn’t conform to your expectations
>things aren’t the way I want
>how can I change things to suit me
There are two avenues, the first is philosophical- accept reality as it is and you will find “problems” disappear. The second is technical - reject the situation and try to change your environment. Choose your path, anxious ape.

>>22314939
>Name a single solution to any problem in the world that will be solved with philosophy.
You can't have anything of the current legal system without philosophy.

The rules of society that govern everything in your life are philosophy.

>>22314924
Obvious bait. It would appear that philosophy is done with you, and not you with it.

>>22314924
Badly filtered. Many such cases.

Read the Bible

>>22322693
So it's philosophy's fault that all charges against SBF have been dropped?

>>22317408
yeah uhhh its subjective that raping babies is a bad thing. in my country, its a good thing... ethics.. pftt who needs it

>>22324672
You are arguing like a philosopleb. To anyone with common sense it is obvious that violent crimes are bad. Only a philosopleb feels the need to be an annoying dipshit by saying "ACKshually this is le subjective!!! hurr durr everything is le relative xD." Just one of many reasons why nobody likes these philosoplebs.

>>22324699
You're arguing in ethical terms. what is common sense anyway? You have a philosopher to thank for that. You cant wiggle out of ethics, parenting and education and foundationally grounded in ethics.

>>22314924
>>The correct metaphysical structure of the universe will most likely be some version of monism. Parmenides and Spinoza probably came the closest to how reality truly is.
Deboonked by Nietzsche

>>22324699
>Violent crimes are bad
Says who? How'd you come to that conclusion?

>>22314924
>The Greeks were a disaster for western civilization and set us back hundreds of years.
Hellenics are not the western civilization, read Spengler

>>22324701
>what is common sense anyway? You have a philosopher to thank for that.
Common sense is a rare superpower that makes me superior to philosotards. I constantly have to defend common sense against these plebs because they don't have it.
>You cant wiggle out of ethics, parenting and education and foundationally grounded in ethics.
Trivially. But philosophy has no right to claim any ownership of the topic of ethics. In fact, philosocucks are the least qualified when it comes to ethics. I'd rather hear a farmer's or a construction worker's opinion on ethics than some armchair pseud who starts crying as soon as you challenge his inconsistent theoretical ivory tower.

>>22324735
>But philosophy has no right to claim any ownership of the topic of ethics
I'm waiting for you to produce a paper soley from a physics paper on why Johnny shouldn't feel Betty up in highschool when she says no.

>>22315033
>>22315038
>>22315041
OP utterly and irreversibly blown the fuck out.

>>22320870
Uhh no philosophy used logical rigor, just like math, it just focuses on different things

>>22324450
lmao where did you hear that

>>22324742
>philosocucks are so dysfunctional, they need an acadummic paper to tell them that rape is le bad

>>22324963
Philosophy rarely uses logic. Logical rigor is not applicable to most philosophical topics, as demonstrated by Midwitgenstein.

>>22324964
On /pol/ and on X.

>>22324975
Just stop posting

>>22324979
The fuck is X?
>KWA8N0

>>22319945
>queue Heideggerian response that void * is actually the pointer to everything or anything (so long as it is dereferenced properly depending on its context).

>>22317581
>thinking that agriculture itself is not part of the problem.

Probably spent money on an education too. You could've got it for free if you had testicles and free time.

>>22317534
based on my experience as a human

>>22325047
cue

>>22314924
>Only read anarchists who want to be left alone and leave you alone too.
such as?

>>22314939
Your worship of STEM is what makes this land a hell dimension; if you had only studied philosophy you'd know how to appreciate life.

>>22327043
ancaps or extreme libertarian

>>22327388
yeah, but the specific books or the names of the authors?
I'm guessing you've read some?

Reasonable, but cut the STE. Only M is worth your time

>>22324971
Does not follow, you insincere swine. Go be a mute slave to the machine that serves your social better while they are left free to engage in the royal art of devising ever more devious ways of fucking up the plebs and make the plebs do it all themselves.

>>22324699
>To anyone with common sense
And if it is common sense to mutilate genitals of newborn males, would you follow it? Are you okay with males in wigs following your mother to the bathroom perhaps too?