/lit/ - Literature

ok but what do you expect out of this thread

All those things are true
But when knowledge itself is a giant self-perpetuating masturbation machine, philosophy then become a cog

>>4400614
Ethics is not bunch of bull. It is a pursuit of an objective moral truth. Otherwise, society crumbled; there is anarchy.

>>4400634
>implying there is a objective truth
>assuming the pursuit of moral truth is what keeps society together.

>>4400639
Truth is objective. That's why it's truth. Mathematics and morality is no different. You are ignorant if you think otherwise.

>>4400644
Posting a statement like that and the. calling someone ignorant.

Damn. Glad to see the Rand scholars are out in force today.

>>4400657

Truth by definition is universal. If a truth is not universal it is not truth.

>>4400683
>Universal truths
>2013

Please, read something.

>>4400657
Truth is truth. If something is false it is not true. It isn't a difficult concept.

>>4400693
what are the conditions of truth

It's like you've never read Heidegger and his successors before.

>>4400683
>Truth by definition is universal. If a truth is not universal it is not truth.

But the crucial part of it is the existence, no?

>>4400702
>Cites continentalist philosophy as obvi truths
>as if analytic philosophy isn't a million times superior

>>4400696
..that it's true... that no part of it is false. We haven't yet arrived at a universal truth (maybe certain aspects of history and, perhaps, science) but truth is truth.

...do you not understand philosophy?

He said objective moral truth and you're all latching on to just the word truth. Stop it.

>>4400708
so if truth isn't merely a circular definition, it depends on not being false in any part?
what are the conditions of falsehood?

None of what has been said in the OP is even remotely true. Similar things could be said about the natural sciences.

>No significant achievement since Goedel
Yes, there have been; though not as big as Godel's.

>The most CELEBRATED philosophers
>Austen, Singer, Searle
Haaaahahhaha.

>Analytic statement through contingent observations.
Lmao. Did you just make this up?

Lmao @ "metaphysics taken over by physics", when metaphysics (combined with logic, epistemology, and phenomenology) is in fact is the foundation(s) of physics. Read Carnap and Chalmers.

>Ethics is a bunch of bull.
None of the sort, actually. No one takes Wittgenstein seriously in contemporary (meta)Ethics.

>No societal contribution since Aristotle.
What is Rawls and what is Nozick?

ITT: The guy who is unable to put up with the fact that his miserable attempts at trolling the most intelligent board of 4chan are failing harder and harder with each thread.

Anyhow, your incoherent Wikipedia-knowledge slurps aren't impressing anyone.

>>4400614

>>No societal contribution since Aristotle.

I'm not sure how I feel about that At first I thought, yes, philosophy is for the most part separated from the common man and has very little place in the comings and goings of the majority, but then I'm not sure if that is what OP meant. Anyone here that can expand on that idea?

>>4400721
>Yes, there have been; though not as big as Godel's.
[citation needed]

>metaphysics [...] is in fact is the foundation(s) of physics
Top lel. You clearly know nothing about physics.

>the most intelligent board of 4chan
That would be /b/.

>>4400733
>That would be /b/.

what.

>>4400733
>/b/
>intelligent in any way
Even /s4s/ is better because they don't take themselves seriously.
Apart from that I don't really like philosophy but I don't think It's useless.

>>4400733
>You clearly know nothing about physics.
Sorry to break this to you, but ontology (and logic, epistemology, and phenomenology) is more fundamental that physics.

Dissipate your ignorance: read more.

>>4400683

pleb-tier

>>4400614

>Philosophy is one big academic circlejerk

Beats being one big political circlejerk

>>No significant contribution since Godel
>hurr what r quine?

>>No societal contribution since Aristotle
Although what you say is very blatantly wrong, if it were the case it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The purpose of philosophy is the pursuit of truth in rational thought, not winning petty political squabbles. But in reality, there HAS been societal change due to philosophy since the Greeks. Look at Machiavelli or Spinoza or Kant. It just takes a bit of time for philosophy to "filter down" into everyday society, meaning that there haven't really been any socially influential 20th century philosophers.

>>Even the most celebrated philosophers, (Wittgy, Austen, Singer, Searle, etc.,) agree sci is better
This actually isn't correct. Although some of the important 20th century philosophers - notably Quine and the logical positivists - this is a small portion of "the most celebrated philosophers", and even of "the most celebrated philosophers" of the 20th century. As for the ones which you mentioned, WItty being a science fetishist is patently untrue. If anything, he was a total mystic. Austen and Searle, although both iconically analytic in method, are very clearly not science fetishists either. How can you be if you're a property dualist (or whatever minor variation on property dualism Searle takes up)? As for Singer, he isn't even that influential/"celebrated".

>>Analytic statement through contingent observations.
Although this isn't what philosophy is (certain laws of logic are hardly contingent), such a practice would be wholly valuable so long as it is conducted rationally. I see no problem here.

>> metaphysics taken over by physics
Although I agree metaphysics is no more, it has been divvied up between several disciplines, and not just physics. You would know this if you knew anything about metaphysics. But of course you don't, because you just can't think quite that hard.

>>Only thing that philosophy has left is ethics
Why is this? Just because you don't argue your points doesn't mean others do too. And this is all philosophy is - everyday, common-sense reasoning taken to a more precise and abstract level. You cannot merely assert this sort of thing. You have to ARGUE LOGICALLY for it - something quite alien to your philistine ways.

>>Ethics is a bunch of bull. (for example, read Wittgy's Lecture on Ethics.)
>hurr a member of a supposedly dead discipline said something that confirms my preconceptions so he must be right
And again, you'll have to ARGUE for ethics being "a bunch of bull" - especially when you appear to DISMISS the discipline of which the lecture you told us to read is a part of.

>>The only reason it's still alive is because of lofty doctrinarie academics
>am I being Marxist yet?

On the overall, I think all these assertions need a [citation needed] attached to them.

OP, your opinion is juvenile and obnoxious.

>>4400819

> - notably Quine and the logical positivists - endorse this position*

>>4400819
>And again, you'll have to ARGUE for ethics being "a bunch of bull"

Not the poster you're quoting, but ethics is dead. It has been solved by common sense. Whenever a decision is to be made, it's made by common sense, not by pseudo-intellectual philosobabble.

>>4400827
>argumentum ad hominem

>>4400835
>ethics is dead. It has been solved by common sense. Whenever a decision is to be made, it's made by common sense

>>4400705

Now hold on though, although Heidegger is very obtuse in his method, what he says really is substantial, even if it isn't actually true. Don't just dismiss him.

>>4400835

>it IS determined by common sense
>therefore it OUGHT TO BE determined by common sense
No you're right you've totally just defeated ethics. Good job.

>>4400721

If by foundation you mean historical foundation, I guess I would agree, but I would dispute physics as it is practiced today having much at all to do with epistemology or phenomenology.

>>4400721
>What is Rawls and what is Nozick?
As if those academic writers set the tone for the masses, not reflect what's felt.

They may have had a social contribution, but only one of 10 dollar words.

I'll never understand why it seems almost everyone feels that philosophy and science should be locked in some sort of perpetual battle with one another. Science needs philosophy and philosophy needs science, and the most efficient method of advancing as a society is to use the two in equal conjunction. Philosophy's purpose comes before science, as it teaches how to learn and observe, and brings forth ideas that can later be tested and observed through science. Without philosophy, the scientific method and the quantitative and qualitative dichotomy would be non-existent, which would render scientific discovery essentially useless. While most concepts for learning how to learn and observe have been conceptualized in the past, there's still many fields of science (mainly relating to neurology, physiology, and technology) that continue to greatly benefit from exploration from a philosophical perspective. But science is what gets the tangible results, and as such it is often what takes credit for the entire conception when in reality philosophy was the necessary catalyst to create it in the first place.

>>4400880

You act as if philosophy's only or even primary job is to set the foundations of science, and yet there is a huge field of reality and study totally inaccessible to science, and accessible only to philosophy - namely the field dealing with the fundamentals of human language and thought. Science can explain these things' origins, but not what they really ARE.

>>4400900
>promotes ontological studies as if it really contributes to anything.
lol stahp

>>4400900
That's not studying. That's speculation.

>>4400900
I didn't imply that. The majority of non-analytical metaphysical philosophy is nearly untouchable by science simply because it can't be applied to the scientific method. Likewise there are fields of science that are devoid of philosophical interpretation. But there is very significant overlap between the two, and within that large overlap science and philosophy thrive by feeding off of each other.

yeah, that useless philosophy is dead

buddhizm will never die. it lives wherever there is impermanence.

>>4400614
OP here.

I think the biggest problem with philosophy is its poisition on a priori/a posteriori & necessity/contingency division.

Two pillars of modern world are mathematics and science. Their fruition in terms of achievements and theoretical grounding, i argue, is not because the people there are smarter, but because the structure of their study is rigorous and unambiguous. Let's analyze their structure and compare it with philosophy's.

First, mathematics. Only the very few would argue that mathematics is not a priori. It comes entirely from the mind and mind alone. Mathematics is also necessary -- it follows logic and is tautological, hence universal. (When I say necessary/contingent, I mean it in terms of Kripke's conception of possible worlds, hence universal/contingent)

Science, on the other hand, relies on observations, hence their knowledge is a posteori, while their theories are contingent. (Like how we can imagine a world where, g =/= 9.8 m/ss)

But compare this to philosophy. Philosophy is supposed to be both a posteori (Philosophers appeal to observations all the time, don't they?) and necessary, in that their observations are supposed to be true of whatever worlds there are. If you think about it this makes no sense.

>tl;dr good luck with that philosophy degree.

Philosophy is nothing but a spook.

>>4400989
spooks are nothing but a spook

>>4400614
Analytic philosophy: because not everyone can understand Hegel

>>4401025
lulz. Please.

>>4400683

>>4400614
>>No societal contribution since Aristotle.
stopped reading there

>>4400614
That's academia in general.

Philosophy died during the Enlightenment. The scholastics were the last valid philosophers. The inability to draw distinctions has killed philosophy.

Why ur moms a slut:
>sucked my dick last night two hours
>literally guzzles cum. that bitch hungry for cum
>pussy lips hangin down by her ankles
>gave a handjob to your principal so you wouldn't go in the sped class
>wears fishnets to court appearances
>trained a dog to lick her pussy
>got the clap five times
>fucked all ur friends
>has made consistently poor life choices
>got a dildo size of texas
>also shape of texas

>>4401248
lol

>>4400687
Isn't

>I think, therefore I am

a universal truth?

>>4401248
>has made consistently poor life choices

you cunt

>>4401262
lol @ you

>>4401264
lol @ at you 2

gib reasons why not?

>>4401262
The problem with describing that as a universal truth is that we don't know it's true for everybody. "Cogito ergo sum" says that thought is evidence of existence or being of some kind, and we can say that this is true for all thinking beings as such, but it doesn't give us any evidence about the existence of thinking beings other than ourselves. So really all the truth statement contained in that is "I think, and I exist", and that's not a universal truth in the sense of the word, because it only has applicability for the individual subject.

>Even the most celebrated philosophers, (Wittgy, Austen, Singer, Searle, etc.,) agree sci is better

Jesus Christ. I'm so sick of those degree wars on /lit/.

>>4401273
Yeah, that's why is a universal truth to an individual universe. It's impossible to prove that everyone exists, but is possible to prove that I exist so, therefore, it is a universal truth.

>>4400835

>>4401295
Agrees.

>>4401298
But that's not a universal truth. Universality lies in being true for everyone. If no one else exists, the truth isn't universal, it's a subjective, personal truth. That might be the only possible standard that exists for truth, but that doesn't mean that it's universal.

Your argument is essentially that universal truths don't exist, so we should just redefine 'universal truth' to mean something else, and hey presto now universal truth exists. In fact, your argument relies on the lack of existence of universal truth, taken as an assumption.

>>4401321
>Universality lies in being true for everyone
yes, but all the universe is created because I think, therefore, I exist. That is why it is a universal truth. If you can think, you exist. We can't prove that others exist, because all their supposed individual thinking, can be a false image of my thinking (does that make sense? hehe). But the fact that all the things that I see and sense exists to me, it is a universal truth. It's undeniable that all the universe is created by my mind. That's why is an absolute truth. If I cease to think, I cease to exist, therefore all the Universe does not exist anymore.

>>4401361
Like

you can say that all you want, but that's not what 'universal truth' means. no matter how much you try to redefine it, universal truth doesn't mean what you say. if you're going to argue from a solipsistic position, universal truth doesn't exist, unless you redefine universal truth to mean the opposite of universal truth (which is what you're doing).

>>4401367
universal truth isnt something that can't be denied?

>>4401367
Ok, I just went through wikipedia and got this
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." —Steven Robiner

That's why this statement that you said in >>4401361
>Universality lies in being true for everyone
isn't true

>>4401321
A universal truth is something that applies universally, the universe exists only because of an individual, then his truths are universal by definition, however he probably doesn't know them very well because it's rather unlikely something doesn't go against them.

>>4401372
Let me put it this way: you might have an argument for saying that it was a universal truth if you knew for a fact that you were the only mind in the world. But you don't.

>>4401412
>you knew for a fact that you were the only mind in the world. But you don't.
Ok, if there is other minds in the universe, they work the same way by the rules of "I think, therefore, I exist". And their universe is pictured by their minds, therefore, they exist because they think. Therefore each and every individual existence and universe is defined by "I think, therefore, I am". Being a universal truth

>>4401424
Whether or not "they think" is unverifiable and less likely than the distinct possibility that they only exist because you think.
I know you've heard these arguments before, don't you have a more compelling counter?

>>4401427
>Whether or not "they think" is unverifiable and less likely than the distinct possibility that they only exist because you think.
Yeah you are right, I have already said this before, it is impossible to prove that others exist. But the fact that I exist is provable and undeniable, because I think. And it does not need to applicable to everyone to be a universal truth, because it is impossible to prove they, de facto, exist. But if they think, their minds work the same way, being impossible for them to prove that I, for example, exist.

>I know you've heard these arguments before, don't you have a more compelling counter?
Yes I did, but the fact that i am not speaking to you face to face and that english isnt my first language, sometimes confuses me a little. hehe

>>4401025
Not even Hegel himself.

>>4400683


I turn around and look at you, stick out my hand and say "this is left!" is it true?

I confused to why analytic philosophers do Philosophy; they seem to hate it so much and praise science, however, they refuse to become scientist.

If you want to ignore: sociology, political theory, psychoanalysis, Ethics, That's Fine by me.

bump

If the principles used by science, derive from philosophy, given that philosophy is the love and pursue of knowledge, and since everything that is studied generates knowledge, I'd say philosophy will not die, if there's someone researching anything at all.

Also, in a modern society, the fact some people have notions of philosophy, even if they don't know they do, is the only thing that prevents them from rwanding their neighboors. I have seen a world without any notion of philosophy at all, and it wasn't nice.

>>4406121
Also: the encapsulation of knowledge in bulkheads is the biggest lie ever invented.

Knowledge isn't something dead, something you can dissect. It's something alive, that never ends, if done properly, because it's subject of study, never ends.

>>4400683
Even science has proven you wrong long time ago.

>>4400614
The more science advances the less room philosophy has.

>>4400683

you are confusing truth with real. truth is nothing more than an agreement.

Philosophy became obsolete in the 19th century. The formalization of logic by math and the invention of the scientific method killed philosophy. All that's left to philosophers is unscientific retard epistemology ("How can we know anything if our brains aren't real?") and kindergarten tier metaphysics ("What if the reality of solipsism is a qualia?").

>>4406155
>"What if the reality of solipsism is a qualia?"
this doesn't even mean anything
I'm not sure that you know anything about philosophy outside of buzzwords

>>4406164
>this doesn't even mean anything
Exactly. Welcome to metaphysics. Pic related.

>I'm not sure that you know anything about philosophy outside of buzzwords
Neither do philosophers.

>>4406155
How did we arrive at the scientific method? What makes you think that we won't in the future replace it with something else?

>>4406171
>How did we arrive at the scientific method?
Irrelevant. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Philosophy officially ended with the invention of the scientific method.

>What makes you think that we won't in the future replace it with something else?
Because it works. Science efficiently and effectively produces objective truth.

>>4406164
>this doesn't even mean anything

maybe it was 2deep4u

>>4406168
ok... how do you derive a particular from a universal?

>>4406177
>Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

It is not an appeal to tradition. An appeal to tradition is "this is true/good because it has always been like that." I'm asking you how was it that we arrived at the scientific method.

>Because it works. Science efficiently and effectively produces objective truth.

You don't even know what science is, if we're to go from this statement.

>>4406180
I don't waste my time with pseudo-intellectualism.

>>4406189
>I'm asking you how was it that we arrived at the scientific method.
So your question was free of innuendo? You just asked because you're factually ignorant? Try google or any search engine of your choice. The history of science can be found easily. How new are you to the internet?

>You don't even know what science is
I am doing science every day.

I'm the best tripfag on /lit/.

>>4406204
Only because I don't tripfag.

>>4406198
>I don't waste my time with pseudo-intellectualism.
then why did you pretend to have an opinion about metaphysics when you don't know anything about it?

Thanks, I agree: I am the best.

>>4406215
Nobody knows anything about metaphysics. In metaphysics you cannot know nothing. That's the fucking point. How hard did you fail philosophy? The entire field of metaphysics is literally nothing but "I choose to believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me". This is what you get when talking about untestable bullshit without basis in reality. Only in science and math we have objective truth.

>>4406217
*tips fedora*

Someone please tell me what philosophy does today

>>4406224
nothing

>>4406217
You could have just said metaphysics is useless to you but you attempted to offer its truth value instead. Pseudo-intellectualism at its finest.
This is the sort of arrogance you get when you stop feeding students Plato and Aristotle and focus on more "contemporary" problems instead.

>>4406224
Pic related is one of the most highly renowned philosophers of our times. With his broad education and intellectual depth he makes informative youtube videos about ... bananas.

>>4406224
it gets girls to want to do sex w/u

>>4406226
>>4406235
>>4406237
Seriously. Does it just argue about the ethical implications of abortion, crime, and this kind of stuff? What else?

>>4406234
Plato and Aristotle are of no value anymore. I mean sure it was fun reading them in the original language in order to practice ancient greek, but the actual contents are plainly retarded from our modern point of view. Plato's primitive understanding of meta-language is cringeworthy. His overly simplistic, infantile conception of political hierarchy was utopian and useless even in his own time. Aristotle's clumsy attempts at basic propositional logic would nowadays not even qualify him to pass an IQ test.

>>4406198
>I am doing science every day.
Masturbation isn't science; it's art.

>>4406241
>Plato and Aristotle are of no value anymore.

8/10

>>4406242
When your penis is so small that masturbation involves quantum mechanics, then it becomes science.

>>4406237
LMFAO. I'd never date a philosotard.

>>4406245
Wow, you sure convinced me with that below /b/ tier shitpost. Great debating skills, my friend. Is this what you learned in Aristotle's book on rhetorics? Certainly he destroyed a lot of counterarguments by labeling them "8/10".

>>4406248
when it's that small, you don't really know whether it's there or not

>>4406241
my negro

>>4406252
There's actually been a bit of a revival of teleological ethics in recent decades. Aristotle isn't entirely valueless.

>>4400980
>their observations are supposed to be true of whatever worlds there are
i do not have enough nope for this. any strong philosophical theory will incorporate the possibility of different possible worlds into its overarching postulate.

>>4406241
why would you study greek only to consider it obsolete though
ὦ Σόλων, Σόλων, Ἕλληνες ἀεὶ παῖδές ἐστε, γέρων δὲ Ἕλλην οὐκ ἔστιν.’ ἀκούσας οὖν, ‘πῶς τί τοῦτο λέγεις;’ φάναι.’ ‘νέοι ἐστέ,’ εἰπεῖν, ‘τὰς ψυχὰς πάντες: οὐδεμίαν γὰρ ἐν αὐταῖς ἔχετε δι᾽ ἀρχαίαν ἀκοὴν παλαιὰν δόξαν οὐδὲ μάθημα χρόνῳ πολιὸν οὐδέν

Philosophy isn't dead exactly, although most academics should die.

If Wittgenstein and Heidegger have taught us anything, it's to be conscious of the limits of language, to return to Aristotle (yes, Wittgenstein was unknowingly a virtue ethicist) and to not let our world views get dominated by technology, money, the sheeple etc