/lit/ - Literature

Nope. Only dumbass logical positivists think that.

>>4846438
1. Logical positivists don't think that, since they are doing philosophy
2. You are referring to /sci/ tier scientism fags

Please look up LP before posting about it

Why should I live scientist?

>>4846459
a philosopher can't tell you that either

Has philosophy rendered philosophy obsolete? That's the vibe I'm getting.

>>4846463
Then you are both useless

>>4846459
So you can help make "progress" and live within the confines of a narrow, simplistic worldview which helps make life feel less scary and confusing. Sounds kind of like religion. Whoa.

science brings knowledge
philosophy brings wisdom

>>4846432
Since much of science stems originally from philosophy, I would say that, at worst, science has severely narrowed philosophy. But science does not now, nor will it likely ever, offer moral or ethical answers. It cannot offer the best way to live, because it cannot define best. It can provide the proper way to achieve what ever that best is, but it cannot define that best.

Ultimately, science offers a lot of data that needs to be interpreted, and Philosophy proposes interpretations.

>>4846481
what's the distinction

>>4846495
>let's study the dynamics of liberated females in business contexts, Mainstreet versus Wallstreet
>Why, What for, If yes then how

>>4846432
No, it can't possibly do that because it relies on philosophy and various philosophical ideas regarding how we can gain, verify, and expand on or extend knowledge. Please, don't post these lazy troll threads in the future, there's nothing to be gained here.

I think science and philosophy are pretty closely related; the former is just a fuller realization of the latter. Both were essentially methods of inquiry that relied on observation and logic. Science just takes it a bit further by actually validating claims through the scientific method, which means we can avoid a priori, self-indulgent philosophies to explain things and instead rely on what we can prove.

That only goes for the 'hard' sciences though. In the area of social science, it's pretty much old school philosophy still, although it makes its best attempt at utilizing the scientific method.

So has philosophy been supplanted by science? In a way, philosophy grew up into science. At least that's how I look at it.

>>4846481

You've got to be kidding me. What kind of wisdom did you receive from studying the Aufbau?

No, despite their origins, they are separate fields now. Science progress fast. Every day there are advancements; from the continued mapping of Brocca oligodendrocytes, to longer proteomic chains; or the exponential increase of transistors in a NMC to faster fiber optic broadband. Philosophy is not obsolete, though, it watches all of this and comments on it. Every new scientific advancement changes the descriptive map that we have of empirical reality, and philosopher respond to this new map.

The main contentions people have with philosophers is:
i) they are, for the most part, unable to advance the descriptive framework we currently have of of reality using empirical methods.
ii) Areas where there is overlap (arguably everywhere) causes tension - Some scientists maintain that epistemology, the study of knowledge, or morality, can only be discussed with fields like biology, neuroinfomatics, even psychology, as the entire field of philosophy is reduced to a footnote at the bottom of the page with the disclaimer, "I cannot objectively verify the existence of this, and my axiomatic grounding is only internal to the framework I'm discussing in."

No. Science examines and tries to explain physical phenomena whereas philosophy addresses higher, metaphysical questions (at least metaphysics does, I don't particularly care about ethics or epistemology). I believe that things like the theory of relativity and other more theoretical explanations of reality are interesting but overall science tends to be a lowlier pursuit than philosophy because it is limited by empirical observation of physical phenomena. For some books on the relationship between science and philosophy, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Carnap, and Wittgenstein would be good to check out.

>>4846509
>were
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's a wrap.

>>4846438
⇒logical positivism

Meaningless buzzword exclusively used by people who don't know shit about neither science nor philosophy.

science is a philosophy you fuck

>>4846469
Science can answer SOME questions.
Philosophy can answer NO questions.

>>4846487
⇒But science does not now, nor will it likely ever, offer moral or ethical answers.
It does. The neuroscientist Sam Harris solved morality in "The Moral Landscape". Philosophy on the other hand hasn't ever solved even a single ethical problem.

>>4846561
Science can tell you an explanation of the universe. But no matter how much you know about the big bang, that will not give you an excuse to exist, a reason or a purpose concerning your existence. In fact, science only tell me "you are as worthless as a piece of shit".

Some people will be happy with that, some not. You can' get angry to someone for being human and not being able to stay happy by just "living every day".

Btw, a great part of philosophy is not there to give a reason to exist. There will exist communists, anachists and the like besides science.

>watching Lawrence Krauss lecture thing
>says metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological problems and questions are obsolete because modern scientists can make accurate predictions about the laws of the universe

It's like everything lined up just right so that I could see deep inside his mind, and holy shit was it depressing. How can someone with so much experience and education be stupider than a 14 year old?

Philosophy, religion, and science all blend together to create the world as we know it.. each one attempts to explain life, the universe, and everything, but I believe that all 3 are connected.

>>4846561
Philosophy is the reason there are ethical problems needing to be solved in the first place.

Even if you reach a conclusion through science, it's philosophy, but I won't be getting into that since you're a ruselord.

>>4846607
⇒will not give you an excuse to exist, a reason or a purpose concerning your existence
What objective meaning of life did philosophy find?

>>4846620
⇒Philosophy is the reason there are ethical problems needing to be solved in the first place.
Are you saying philosophy is the source of all evil?

World based on philosophy
>slow but steady development toward more rational society
>technological means of Classical Antiquity can already be used to create idyllic utopia
>inexorable march of hegelian Spirit until the world is ruled in perfect communitarian meritocratic harmony and everyone's a philosopher king and has parties all the time

World based on science
>IF I MALTHUSIAN IT SOME MORE, WILL THE MALTHUSIAN STOP HAPPENING??? PLEASE
>WHAT IF I JUST CREATED BOMBS
>THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL THOUSAND PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WITH ACCESS TO BUTTONS THAT COULD KILL THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, DID I DO GOOD?
>BTW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FEED THE ENTIRE PLANET EVEN WITH ITS OVERPOPULATION 500 TIMES OVER FOR LIKE TWO CENTURIES BUT DECIDED TO JUST LET ONE COUNTRY GET SUPER FAT INSTEAD
>OOPS SHIT I MELTED THE OZONE LAYER FUCK
>YOU GUYS WANT MORE BOMBS OR WHAT

>>4846432
>Has science rendered philosophy obsolete?

No.

But industrialization has mortally wounded it.

>>4846623
>Are you saying philosophy is the source of all evil?
If I ask "what's behind that mountain?", whose fault is it? The questioner, the mountain's or whatever is behind that mountain?

>>4846561
>>4846623
>Thinks the answers are the end of all activity
>Approaches questions as if they are an evil to be vanquished with answers

It's as if your ideal is that we hold the answers to all things and no longer have questions. No wonder you hate philosophy, the sooner we stop asking questions the sooner we reach that utopia.

>>4846625
>people now have more free time and resources for contemplation
>bad for philosophy

>>4846432
>Aristotle>Plato


Thanks to capitalism philosophy will always be current and of use.

Think about how much money would be lost by universities if wannabe scientists ended up in the workforce instead of pursuing useless degrees.

The reality is most philosophical questions are subjective, obsess over semantics and through that can never be answered. It's the reason why science will never be able to answer philosophical questions.

How is anyone supposed to say logically why you should live?

On the otherhand I can say at what speed the rock will hit your head when I drop it from the top of the campus building.

If you are trying to explain something physically real (physics, chemistry, social behaviour), then you need empirical evidence. If you are trying to explain something personal, then by all means philosphise.

So I'll go back on myself, besides providing employment for academics, philosophy will always be of value at the personal level.

>>4846561
>It does. The neuroscientist Sam Harris solved morality in "The Moral Landscape". Philosophy on the other hand hasn't ever solved even a single ethical problem.

WE TRASHED THIS FEDORACORE DELUSION JUST A WEEK AGO YOU PIECE OF WASTE

>>4846634
I want to believe it has given rise to more than TED talks and Wikipedia scavenging

>>4846645
>It's the reason why science will never be able to answer philosophical questions.
Science itself is an answer.

>How is anyone supposed to say logically why you should live?
How? We can barely say why.

Also, I suspect you're confused about what philosophy is.

>>4846652
That's because you're still thinking on the mid-to-slave level

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
“philosophers are always with us, struggling in the periphery to try to tell us something, but they never really understand the subtleties and depths of the problem.”
-- Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965

"Philosophy is dead. Philosophy is passé. Philosophers cannot not keep up with modern developments in science. Philosophy is now the guy who shows up to a cocktail party just after the guests have left. "
-- Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA, Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge

"Contemporary philosophers don't have sufficient knowledge of scientific models of reality in order to make philosophical claims about them."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics

"“Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, ‘those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.' And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on science what so ever. ... they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”
--Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist and advocate of public policy based on sound empirical data and scientific skepticism.

>>4846432
Philosophy in it's origins IS science.

>>4846679
Science in its origins IS philosophy.

>>4846662
I refuse to believe you can use a scientific method to answering a question like why should anyone say why you should live?

But, yes given that philosophical questions cover everything, science would then be THE answer to some questions.

>>4846668
>"Contemporary philosophers don't have sufficient knowledge of scientific models of reality in order to make philosophical claims about them."
BINGO.

>>4846688
Contemporary scientists don't have sufficient knowledge of philosophical models of reality in order to make scientific claims about them

>>4846695
>Contemporary scientists don't have sufficient knowledge of philosophical models of reality in order to make scientific claims about them
OGNIB.

>another science vs philosophy thread
>hurr i'm so useful muh progress

Why are STEMfags so insecure? Why do you keep arguing about things you don't anything about?

>>4846708
don't know*

>>4846707
meht tuoba smialc cifitneics ekam ot redro ni ytilaer fo sledom lacihposolihp fo egdelwonk tneiciffus evah t'nod stsitneics yraropmetnoC<
BINGO

>>4846695
It's a good thing that's not what scientists do then.

>>4846708
>Why are STEMfags so insecure?
Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.

>our personally funded thought labs render the need for you to think obsolete, proles. if you are in dire need of a thought, they're currently on sale

>>4846724
>wow

>>4846708
Scientists don't give two shits about philosophy. It is teenagers who have spent a few months reading Nietzsche, desperately trying to justify their wasted time when faced with the realistic notion that philosophy is completely irrelevant in 2014.

>>4846737
>the only important thing is to punch the clock, produce and consume

>>4846742
>mind-blowing

>Another philosophy thread not discussing literature.
>>>/s4s/

>>4846742
Yes that is literally what he's saying.

>>4846759
It's a thought provoking tangent.

>>4846723
>>4846737
>We don't give two shits about you, you are beneath our notice and irrelevant to anything and everything we say and do
>But I wanted to take some of my precious, infinitely valuable, time to let you know how worthless and pointless your very existence is and I cannot fathom why you have not yet killed yourself for utter shame of your mockery of purpose compared to our glorious grandeur
>Not that we pay any attention to you or anything

>>4846769
No it's not.

>>4846780
That's true. When I step in dog shit it doesn't provoke any thoughts at all, just irritation.

>>4846774
Are you suggesting that those two posts are by the same person?

>>4846774
>We don't give two shits about you, you are beneath our notice and irrelevant to anything and everything we say and do
That post you are responding to is a quote from the famous physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss

sciencefags are just jelly they're not smart enough to hack it as philosophers. anyone can learn science from a textbook but philosophy is a liberal art, a creative endeavour, an attempt at synthesis, intertextuality, it is the becoming of a free spirit, more than mere intellect, genius, is required for such a pursuit.

qq, scientistfaggots, cry moar, philosophy came before science and will last longer than science

>>4846810
Philosophy is already dead.

>>4846816
>Philosophy is already dead.
Top kek. Next you're going to tell me that Latin is a dead language and postmodernism killed art.

Has Philosophy Gone Too Far?

>>4846805
Okay. So?

There are also quotes by Feynman, Hawking, and Weinberg in this thread alone. And there are more quotes from scientists elsewhere to the same effect.

It's still the same attitude.

>>4846822
PHILOSOPHERS GONE WILD!

>Sade
>Stirner
>Nietzsche
>Foucault

>>4846853
oh my!

i like this list

>philosophy is dead trust me guys, you don't have to think about anything, just accept the pre-packaged regurgitated metaphysical/ethical package that scientists throw around
>it's fucking science you can't question anything

I hate you, STEMfags. I'd rather spend my life studying scholastics then hang around with "scientists". What a bunch of pompous aasholes.

I like both and study both subjects. :^)

enjoy your false dichotomy's and ignorance /lit/ and /sci/ tards

>>4846905
In summary: Science helps me make sense of the physical world and all it's phenomena. Philosophy helps me make sense of my inner thoughts, motivations, conduct and metaphysical context.

>>4846624
Get the fuck off the Internet if you don't want a world founded by science.

>>4846619
The holy trinity.

>>4846921
Where should mathematics fit in that trinity?

It sure as hell makes a great religion!

>>4846929
mathematics is the overlap between philosophy and religion

>>4846624
Wow you're an idiot.

>>4846624
kek'd

This is so right it's scary. Looks to me like science can't function without philosophy. Scientists need philosophy to give them direction. Without it they will undoubtedly continue on their inadvertent path of destruction.

>>4846992
>I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

>>4846624
>YOU GUYS WANT MORE BOMBS OR WHAT
Physics in a nutshell.

>>4846432
>Has science rendered philosophy obsolete?
Obviously not, seeings it generated this philosophical question.

Has Jesus rendered the Ten Commandments obsolete?

>>4847048
He shortened it to 2 commandments.

>>4846882
⇒the pre-packaged regurgitated metaphysical/ethical package that scientists throw around

As opposed to the pre-packaged regurgitated metaphysical/ethical package that philosophers throw around? Seriously, for more than 200 years there hasn't been a single new idea in metaphysics. It's just the same garbage over and over again. Do you really think you're deep for considering solipsism once again, as if it wasn't already contemplated and dismissed by every child?

>>4846624
Actually everything bad you attribted to science is actually to be attributed to philosophy.

Science tells you how to make bomb. Philosophy tells you to do and to kill people with it.

Science tells you how to produce food. Philosophy tells you to eat it on your own and become obese while others are starving.

Science tells you how the ozone layer is being damaged. Philosophy tells you to not give a fuck and to continue polluting the environment.

Science tells you what the effects of overpopulation will be. Philosophy tells you to keep the population growing by keeping every cretin alive.

>>4847064
science=how
philosophy=why

>>4847057
>muh naive realism and psychological development hurr
No one even mentioned solipsism before you, holy shit.

>>4847071
science = how
philosophy = here's a moral code that you can try and justify doing all this atrocious shit

>>4847078
>No one even mentioned solipsism before you, holy shit.
Descartes, Berkeley?

>>4847085
Mentioned solipsism In this thread. Neither of them was a solipsist.

When will the mods finally ban this mentally invalid attention whore (who already admitted being a le trolle) from /sci/ spamming this bait crap here erryday? When will it ever stop?

>>4847071
Give an example of a "why" question that has been answered by philosophy.

Oh hey, it's this thread again.

Don't you get bored of this game?

>>4847064
>Actually everything bad you attribted to science is actually to be attributed to philosophy.
>Science tells you how to make bomb. Philosophy tells you to do and to kill people with it.
>Science tells you how to produce food. Philosophy tells you to eat it on your own and become obese while others are starving.
>Science tells you how the ozone layer is being damaged. Philosophy tells you to not give a fuck and to continue polluting the environment.
>Science tells you what the effects of overpopulation will be. Philosophy tells you to keep the population growing by keeping every cretin alive.

You're right in a sense. The philosophy of "progress" has made science its bitch. Not sure that's really a vindication of science, though...

It's like you guys didn't even read the Tractatus.

>>4849073
But even Witty couldn't follow his own advice.

>On philosophy being an emergent property of the sciences. Neither Wittgenstein nor the scientists can grasp this. They cannot even grasp the concept of emergence, after all, how could they hope to grasp this?

orgyofthewill.net

>>4849099

Wittgenstein may not have had a very high opinion of philosophy, especially academic philosophy; but he certainly didn't think science could give you any special insight into, say, how you should behave towards others.

"6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world [that is, outside the assertoric propositions of the natural sciences]. In the world, everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. IN it there is no value--and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and of being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this again would be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.
6.42 Hence there can be no ethical propositions.
Propositions cannot express anything higher
6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and aesthetics are one)."

>yfw the TLP was basically a restatement of Kant's fundamental division of science and ethics.
>yfw when you have no face.

>R: 96 / I: 6

oh lit...

>>4846432
>>4849073
WHEREOF ONE CANNOT MAKE A GOOD THREAD THEREOF ONE MUST REMAIN LURKING

>>4849171

seen this before.

>>4846432

As this thread has proven to you, yes.

Science is a philosophy

I don't know where this whole STEM-utilitarian-technical science vs books thing came from, science was always regarded as a liberal art

>>4849073
I can't find a fucking epub of Philly Investigations.
Or the tractatus for that matter.
#bookz is useless.

>>4849588

This. The two cultures dialectic is bullshit. The only way forward is to ignore the false distinction like Pynchon did.

>>4849635
Tractatus is public domain: http://manybooks.net/titles/wittgensetext04tloph10.html

>>4849644
Ok that was weird.
When i found it on gutenberg it was in german this one is in english so it's ok.

I still can't find PI in epub or some ebook format.
Only PDF.

>>4846668
>>4846688
okay.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0130/papers.shtml
http://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/papers/
http://jamesowenweatherall.com/publications/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~djbaker/philosophy.html
http://www.lps.uci.edu/lps_bios/dmalamen
http://www.oliverpooley.org/papers.html

Science has made man cocky, thinking his connections are correct. For centuries we have retracted what we've previously said.

Sadly i find that we are at the end of the line when it comes to many things. In psych the entire field has become corrupted, thus corrupting much of the West.

People are so enamored by the very shallow understanding we have of neurology. and neuroscience related topics yet we are just scratchign the surface and it is highly probable that we are wrong about many, many things. Although this is likely to be true, we will not see much of it come to light do to the collective and fandom culture we live in . People all less willing to explore once they are convinced of a truth by a scientist.

>>4846668
You again? Kill yourself and stop shitposting.

Science isn't fact.


Pic related: The current state of science.

no, philosophy is a reasonable and welcomed middle ground between science and pure supernatural bullshit (aka religion).

>>4850108
>pure supernatural bullshit (aka religion).

>Theology
>not philosophy based

>>4846432
Science is very good at making things work and at answering the questions it poses on the basis that it poses and in the terms that it poses.

It gets much more difficult when we try to use science to answer complex questions about human beings or the meaning of life or stuff like human sexuality.

It works, but it's not capable of making decisions about its direction or meaning. Not that anyone from the STEM fields listens to us anyways.

idk. philosophy is important to recognize the limits of what we know.

is the whole science vs philosophy divide an American thing? I've never heard of anything like that in my country, on the contrary philosophy students and liberal arts majors tend to hook up with STEMfags

the real divide is between hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) and soft science (sociology, psychology, economics)

Since philosophy is a commentary on all facets of life (including science), it would only ever become obsolete if life became irrelevant.

>>4850135
Yeah because thankfully outside of America people don't put all their faith in soft sciences.

>tfw i live in America with all these dumb pseudo intellectuals

>>4849036
>there are "answers"

philosophy just asks why

Speaking as a logical positivist, what does it matter? Both are subjective; they're only unverifiable thoughts that are commonly agreed on. I don't see how philosophy and science can be distinguished.

Read Hegel before you post about shit you don't know.

>>4850179
this is possibly the most cringe-worthy post I've read on 4chan in recent memory. Congrats

>>4850135
Heh, if you want to blow a STEMfags mind tell them about the old animosity between empiricists and rationalists

I propose that philosophy is a semantic game which in ideal cases produces particularly contagious paradigms which ultimately serve only to promote social cohesion

Debate me

I feel that they are both a part of the same process. For science to make progress, people have to first ask questions and wonder about some facet of the universe. They formulate some possible ideas or explanations. Then they can be tested using the scientific method and be confirmed or denied. The ideas that can't be tested will always remain purely philosophical, but I still think they have value in their own right the same way art does.

>>4850355
I thought of a better way to put it:

Philosophy is about forcing memes.

>>4850373
You're making the mistake of separating the two.

>>4850355
Nah it's way more broad than that

>>4850382
I think the are both part of the same process, the process being the pursuit of knowledge.

>>4850378
Philosophy is about destroying memes.

>>4849036
different philosophies have different answers for the "why?". Most branches of philosophy are the product of a people and their time.

One of these days I'm going to start a "has philosophy rendered science obsolete?" thread

>>4846561
We have answered plenty of questions.

Questions that philosophy has answered:

-No formal system powerful enough to demonstrate all mathematical truths can be consistent.
-You cannot derive values from facts.
-Causality cannot be derived from empirical data.
-Induction does not give us knowledge without a theoretical frame.
-The minimum possible unity of meaning is the sentence.
-To argue against philosophy is to do philosophy.

Just a bunch out of the top of my head.

>>4850842
>-The minimum possible unity of meaning is the sentence.

wud

>>4850852
take "wud" for example. It's still a sentence. It implies an exclamation mark and it is contextualized with another a sentence, the one you quote.

Think also how most words have multiple meanings and the only way you can decide which meaning you are using is only if you can get it in a sentence.

Some people argue that a sentence is not even enough and that actually the minimum unity of meaning is language itself.

>>4850861
question mark*

sorry

>>4850842
>Questions that philosophy has answered:
>Gives a list of statements
>The axiomatic foundations for his statements are not objectively verifiable.
>Undermines validity of statements
>Questions that philosophy has answered:
>None

>>4846624
this is the most retarded post i've ever seen on 4chan

>>4850861
You should read some Korzybski.

>>4850861
> Think also how most words have multiple meanings and the only way you can decide which meaning you are using is only if you can get it in a sentence.

It's like you don't even appreciate the play of différance. No sentence could be sufficient.

But seriously, this claim only makes sense if we broaden the definition of sentence to the point of being indistinguishable from any non-sentence utterance. A language of gesture, for example, conveying hunger and desire to be fed or to acquire food by rubbing your tummy, obviously conveys meaning, attitude, intent and does so without any discreet elements that require the syntax of a sentence.

>>4850866
Ah come on you can deduce the questions yourself:

-Can you formalize Mathematics? No.
-Can I derive facts from values? No.
-Is empirical data enough to determine our notions of causality? No.
-Is induction a secure way to knowledge? No.
-What is the possible minimal unity of knowledge? The sentence.
-Is philosophy obsolete? No, because to decide it you have to do philosophy.

Also axiomatic foundations are never objectively verifiable, that's why all ancient philosophy (and geometry) started wit apodictic statements.

If you can deduce an axiom from the rest of the axioms than it's a theory and not an axiom. In fact for some times they tried to demonstrate the 5th postulate of euclid, but they couldn't because it's not a consequence of the other four (and that's why we have non euclidean geometries).

>>4850871
>différance
Oh no you di'int.

>>4850880
Oh Jackie, you always make me smile :^)

>>4850871
I actually like Derrida a lot, he has many smart things to say.

But on the second part wittgenstein and quine deal with that point.

Quine notices that even gestures need a larger grammar to be understood. If someone points at a kangaroo and says "gavagai" you don't know if that means "catch that kangaroo" "that is a kangaroo" "we call that kangaroo" "I like that" "cool". You need already to be inserted in a common grammar.

Wittgenstein similarly notices that every time you do a gesture you are deciding to apply a rule and how you apply it. His example is that there is no reason for when someone points you follow the finger and not the elbow. The only reason is because you are part of a community with certain habits (i.e. a grammar, which is nothing more than habits of speech).

I'm Italian for example and many gestures that I use are not understandable by anyone who isnt' italian.

But both the second Wittgenstein and Quine are claiming that the sentence is not enough, that for words to meaningful you have to go at a higher level: grammar, context, community.

>>4850890
>I actually like Derrida a lot, he has many smart things to say.

:)

>Wittgenstein similarly notices that every time you do a gesture you are deciding to apply a rule and how you apply it. His example is that there is no reason for when someone points you follow the finger and not the elbow. The only reason is because you are part of a community with certain habits (i.e. a grammar, which is nothing more than habits of speech).

I'm not sure I see this as very relevant. You're just reiterating de saussure's interdependent langue and parole. Obviously the utterance (or gesture or what have you) must coexist with a language-as-system to be intelligible.

My issue with the claim "The minimum possible unity of meaning is the sentence" is specifically with the concept of sentence. What I am claiming is precisely this: That we don't need the syntax and organization of smaller semantic pieces (which is certainly how I would define the sentence) in order to convey a unified meaning. A single sound or gesture or look or even hat could convey a unified meaning (obviously in the presence of some pre-established (or co-established?) langue.)

>>4850920
The objection that you make was made by Sraffa to Wittgenstein.

I don't agree that you don't need a syntax. Again wittgenstein would reply that if there is no syntax there is no meaning because basically you are being the player and the referee of the game.If you don't have a syntax, or at least a person who tells you "no that's not what I meant" you don't have meaning. You have just traces.

Even the gesture to be meaningful someone has to be able to say "nah that's not what it means." but to do that you need a grammar.

>>4846432
There's a philosophy for everything, but the philosophy of science isn't really needed anymore

>>4851103
There isn't a philosophy for anal sex.

>>4851103
>philosophy of science isn't really needed anymore

You will have to elaborate.

>>4851105
Sade

>>4851115
>another "leap of mind"

>>4846432
>Has science rendered philosophy obsolete?
It's not obsolete, it's just outdated and useless. It's like the tamagotchi. Everyone has access to online games and playstation 364's if they want them, but there are probably still a few people playing with tamagotchis.

>>4851112
Not that anon, but I tend to agree only on the basis that Philosophy of Science is better done by... scientists.

But they won't do it, apparently. The utter disinterest and disdain for the foundations of science by scientists is a bit mind-boggling, to be honest. Mathematics doesn't seem to have this kind of divide, 'Philosophy of Math' (if you want to call it that) and Math get along just fine.

>>4851149
>Scientists should philosophize.

Yes, a self-contained evaluation system is best.

>>4850133
⇒It gets much more difficult when we try to [...] stuff like human sexuality.
Maybe for someone like you. For normal people sex is a normal thing.

>>4850135
⇒is the whole science vs philosophy divide an American thing?
Nope, never been to burger land and most STEM people in my country agree that philosophy is outdated.

>>4850829
I asked for OBJECTIVE answers, not baseless opinions.

>>4850842
⇒-No formal system powerful enough to demonstrate all mathematical truths can be consistent.
That's a mathematical theorem and has nothing to do with philosophy.l

⇒-You cannot derive values from facts.
Yes, we can. How else do you think automated pricing works?

⇒-Causality cannot be derived from empirical data.
Causality has been disproved by quantum mechanics long time ago. That's science and not philosophy.

⇒-Induction does not give us knowledge without a theoretical frame.
Common sense, not philosophy. If such kindergarten platitudes are seen as deepest insights in philosophy, then this only underlines the impotence of your field.

⇒-The minimum possible unity of meaning is the sentence.
vacuous nonsense

⇒-To argue against philosophy is to do philosophy.
Puerile sophistry and wrong. I use common sense, logic and scientific facts to argue against bullshit claims.

Yes, science has rendered philosophy obsolete.

Whilst we blindly reach out thinking the small amount of building blocks we have is actually enough to explain all that happens in the universe, we can barely figure out why our neck itches for no reason sometimes. There is no use for philosophy at all.

>>4851174
>actually enough to explain all that happens in the universe

>>4851174
>STOP QUESTIONING AUTHORITY

>>4851174
>we can barely figure out why our neck itches for no reason sometimes
Just because you don't understand how histamine concentration levels fluctuate relative to hormonal, neurological, and environmental stimulation, doesn't mean that other people don't.

>>4851184
No retard he's just trolling you. Put your tinfoil on and >>>/pol/

>>4851188
I am sorry. You have proved there is no use for philosophy by explaining all itching, ever.

>>4851166
>That's a mathematical theorem and has nothing to do with philosophy.

Nope, it's demonstrated through logic which is a branch of philosophy.

>Yes, we can. How else do you think automated pricing works?

Something may be priced highly and yet be considered without value by me. You are willfully confusing the economic meaning of value with the philosophical meaning.

>Causality has been disproved by quantum mechanics long time ago. That's science and not philosophy.

That argument is made by Hume in 1739. I hope you don't think that quantum physics was theorized in the XVIII century.

>Common sense, not philosophy

It's not common sense, the argument could be dated (again to Hume) and we do know that scientists and philosophers did not understand it before. For example Galileo and Bacon have no understanding of the problems of induction.

>vacuous nonsense

Well just because you don't understand it, it does not mean it's just vacuous non-sense.

>Puerile sophistry and wrong. I use common sense, logic and scientific facts to argue against bullshit claims

Which is what philosophers do.
Even though I don't personally believe that there is such thing as common sense.

>>4851174
⇒why our neck itches for no reason sometimes.

Mine never does. Perhaps you should see a doctor. You might have AIDS.

>>4851209
Congratulations, you have shitposted.

>>4851197
I only refuted the elegant defense you made; "philosophy isn't obsolete because I don't understand why my neck is itching".

>>4851209
>look at me with my special arrows

>>4851211
Yes, that is exactly what I said.

>>4851209
>⇒why our neck itches for no reason sometimes.
>Mine never does. Perhaps you should see a doctor. You might have AIDS.

I think he's having a consultation with a philosopher later. An itchy neck can be a sign of acute cartesian dualism.

>>4851184
Stop hitting yourself.

>>4851222
If you think the right thoughts, you will create the correct life.

>>4851213
⇒not using special arrows
fag

Scientists need funding to perform their fancy experiments.
This funding comes from corporations, or maybe governments.
Every business and government is founded upon countless schools of philosophical thought.

Anyway, a poet is worth 50 philosophers / scientists. Nietzsche was a failed poet.

>>4846432
>Has science rendered philosophy obsolete?
To an extent, yes.

If you disagree it's probably because you view science in a very narrow way.
Science nowadays actually deals with a lot of problems which used to be "very philosophical", such as consciousness/mind etc.
In fact, it appears that you cannot even deal with these problems, or make progress, without science.


So where does this leave philosophers? In a role of more political/social oriented workers. Philosophers should be the ones who talk about all the relevant (scientific) problems in a critical way, redefining them and putting them in perspective. Being more closely related to sociologists, psychologists and historians.

>>4851222
>I think he's having a consultation with a philosopher later. An itchy neck can be a sign of acute cartesian dualism.

That's good. I was scared he was going to resort to a medical analysis based on the scientific method. Will he receive two prescriptions then - one for the mind one for the body?

No, philosophy is a need that we all have.

>>4851241
Like shitting?

>>4851203
⇒logic which is a branch of philosophy.
My lels are in orbit. Logic is a branch of math. The highest logic philosophers use is a dumbed down version of first order logic. Understanding even the statement of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is too hard for philosophers.

⇒You are willfully confusing the economic meaning of value with the philosophical meaning.
Only the economic meaning is a useful concept. There is no philosophical meaning of "value", unless you go full retard and claim that every opinion should be called "philosophy". Any idiot can subjectively prefer some things over others. That's no philosophy.

⇒That argument is made by Hume in 1739.
Hume didn't know shit about quantum entanglement.

⇒It's not common sense
It is. Every normally developed child knows it.

⇒Well just because you don't understand it, it does not mean it's just vacuous non-sense.
It isn't my fault that you're too stupid to understand linguistics. But since I have neither the time nor the motivation to spoonfeed you things you should of learned in school, I'll just assume you're a creationist amerifat and post an "argument" on your level.
>Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
See? Even the bible proves you wrong.

⇒Which is what philosophers do.
What? Posting puerile sophistry and falsehoods?

⇒Even though I don't personally believe that there is such thing as common sense.
Go tell that to the doctor. It's an important fact he'll need to know when diagnosing your delayed psychosocial development.

>>4851244
Like eating.

>>4851245
This retard is still making posts.

>>4851236
⇒is founded upon countless schools of philosophical thought.

Nope, they're founded upon economic and societal necessities.

>>4851245
>Every normally developed child knows it.
>diagnosing your delayed psychosocial development
Woah, slow down Freud.

>>4851245
>Logic is a branch of math.

And that's when I realized I'd been trolled.

>>4851252
If you're going to attempt to tell me there's absolutely no philosophy involved in setting up a system of power, determining the economic course of a country, creating laws for citizens to abide by or even the very concept of citizenship

Then you're very very silly.

Any system containing a large amount of people has to have philosophical bedrock or it will fail.

Go jerk off on /sci/, ignoramus.

>>4851256
Freud is outdated pseudoscience and has nothing to do with modern cognitive and developmental psychology.

>>4851261
Ever since logic has been formalized in the late 19th century, it has been a branch of math and not philosophy anymore. For more than 100 years now all researchers in logic had math degrees and understanding logic on a level higher than trivial IQ test questions requires knowledge of mathematics.

>>4846432
I guess with Philosophy you can discuss the WHY while Science can tells us the HOW.

>>4851245
>My lels are in orbit. Logic is a branch of math. The highest logic philosophers use is a dumbed down version of first order logic. Understanding even the statement of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is too hard for philosophers.

It was invented by a philosopher and it is still a requirement for philosophy majors.

Sounds like philosophy to me.

>Only the economic meaning is a useful concept. There is no philosophical meaning of "value", unless you go full retard and claim that every opinion should be called "philosophy". Any idiot can subjectively prefer some things over others. That's no philosophy.

Value it is meant as what it is desirable. It was another way of saying that you can't deduce an ought from an is.

>It is. Every normally developed child knows it.

So why didn't Galileo know it?

>See? Even the bible proves you wrong.
It would if discourse and word weren't synonymous in greek.

>>4851272
>For more than 100 years now all researchers in logic had math degrees and understanding logic on a level higher than trivial IQ test questions requires knowledge of mathematics.

Who is Saul Kripke? For a person claiming to know facts you seem to know very few of them.

>>4851267
There is no philosophy in politics and economics.

>>4851295
⇒Who is Saul Kripke?
A mahematician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke
>Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics

Perhaps you should have read about the man before mindlessly dropping his name and demonstrating your own ignorance, you retarded piece of shit.

Phil noticed, while contemplating the beauty of a rhododendron, that he was getting big. Really big. His stomach had tripled in size, and was shocked to find out that he was pregnant. After birthing his immaculately conceived bastard in a lukewarm birthing pool, anally, he looked down at the deformed monster and named him Sci.

Sci, although rather ugly, was a good child, and Phil and Si had some wonderful times together. As Si entered his teenage years he became arrogant. He demanded more allowance, he was power hungry, he started taking steroids and grew artificially larger than his ageing father.

"I want control of the estate," said Sci in one of his tantrums.

Phil had seen this coming, and let Sci look after Metaphysics and Ethics – a decision he knew he would regret.

Sci did a terrible job. He invented mustard gas, nuclear warheads, cruise missiles, concentration camps, the electric chair, and would constantly tell his father, "It's not 'wrong'. There is no objectivity now, remember?"

But still, Sci still wasn't content with his new power. He started sneaking into the kitchen and slipping morphine into Phil's food.

The old man, now half-sedated, had no choice but to relinquish Logic, and, after an attempted wrestle on the shag carpet, even signed over temporary custody of Epistemology and Aesthetics.

Sci hired a team of henchmen to start writing propaganda for him. They made textbooks, they made pamphlets, they started touring, experimenting on orphans, and Phil, now weak and frail, was powerless to stop them.

Phil now lays in bed all day, drip fed a saline solution into his weak old body, but he still lives. He knows what is going on, and one day Sci will let his guard down.

>>4851304

>After birthing his immaculately conceived bastard in a lukewarm birthing pool, anally

LOLLLLLL i was gonna stop reading but then it got hella epic hella quick so based bro lol :^)

>>4851303
Graduating in something doesn't make you that. Or I would be a philosopher just because I majored in it. Massimo Pigliucci has a phd in biology but he is a self-identified philosopher and teaches in philosophy departments.

Not only you ignore facts but also you are incapable of that common sense that you pride yourself of.

>>4851281
⇒It was invented by a philosopher and it is still a requirement for philosophy majors.
It was formalized by mathematicians and is being researched solely by mathematicians. The only requirement for philosophy majors is a dumbed down class where they learn what a quantifier is or what modus ponens means. Yet most of them fail this class which literally consists of IQ test tier logic. No higher formal logic is covered there because philosophers cannot be expected to undertand it.

⇒Value it is meant as what it is desirable.
Every idiot can and does have subjective opinions. No philosophy needed.

⇒It was another way of saying that you can't deduce an ought from an is.
Thanks for confirming that "philosophical" ethics is useless because it cannot produce answers.

⇒So why didn't Galileo know it?
Because in his time religion was keeping the people dumb.

⇒It would if discourse and word weren't synonymous in greek.
moving the goal posts

>>4851311
You are correct. God chooses the correct philosophers and it may be you. Just open your mouth and speak.

>>4851303
>There is no philosophy in politics and economics.
>a mathematician*
>does next to no work on mathematics during his life
>Kripke was the recipient of the 2001 Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy. A recent poll conducted among philosophers ranked Kripke among the top ten most important philosophers of the past 200 years.
You're just full on trolling at this point, aren't you?

>>4851303
Mate it's very obvious that you're of very low intelligence and jumping on this hate-on-philosophy brigade because it allows you to feel superior than others --and because you've simply chosen the right side (or so you think). It's quite pathetic and you should go cry somewhere we can't hear you.
>My lels are in orbit
You're probably the most cringeworthy poster on here at the moment.

>>4851303
>no philosophy in politics or economics.

Untrue. I gave examples, you made a broad statement with no evidence. You didn't even acknowledge what I said, because if you had you would have proved yourself wrong.

You win the award for most likely to have been on /lit/ for less than a day.
Please stop posting now.

>>4851321
Philosophy is an attempt to become intelligent.

>Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Science has done more to help answer questions to these problems in the last two weeks than philosophy has done since its birth.

>>4851328
Good thing Philosophy is the "study of" and not "answering of" then.

Philosophy is great at generating questions, but pretty terrible at answering any of them. That's also why you keep hearing about how Science needs Philosophy and that Philosophy is not rendered obsolete by Science, and why there's a Philosophy of Science.

Because Science has proven itself kinda shitty at asking questions.

I do not think it has. I mean, of course there are a lot of old philosophical ideas which have been properly rejected by science. It wasn't philosophy that destroyed dualism, for instance, it was science. You might very well talk about the old philosophical problems with dualism (such as the fact that it seems to strange to imply that the physical can be influenced by the mental), but truth is that it was the advancement of science and the fact that this advancement was marked by a characteristic rejection of all immaterial entities that refuted dualism. So, yes, sometimes science can make a philosophical idea pretty much obsolete (even though there are still a few intellectuals, even scientists, who believe in dualism). So can history: the idea that slavery is justified, for instance, would never be taken seriously by moral philosophers.

There are, however, a few questions science just cannot deal which; while philosophy, if it can't answer them, can at least provide us with some wonderful insights, and here are a few of them:

1) What's morally good?

All science can do here is inform us on our psychological 'moral sense', that is to say, the collection of 'moral rules' which apparently we have in our brains. It also can tell us, at least in principle, what courses of action will produce the best consequences. In other words, science can inform moral philosophers, but it's just not fit to answer the fundamental questions.

2) Is scientific realism true?

We don't really know whether the real world really is exactly as science tell us it is or if it's actually different. Is the world really like quantum physics tell us or is quantum physics just a theory which works extremely well?

3) What does exist?

Science tell us a lot about what kinds of material things exist in the world. It tell us about atoms, energy and so on. It can't tell us, however, about numbers, universals and other things which seem to exist but are immaterial. I'm not talking about God here, since religion isn't a serious intellectual issue. I'm talking about mathematical platonism and things like that, which present us with genuinely difficult questions: if numbers were invented by us, then how the hell do they explain nature so efficiently?

4) When are we justified in believing something?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for justified belief? Am I justified in believing in science? When is it correct to accept the opinion of an authority? What kinds of evidence count as good evidence?


Anyway, those are just some of the questions which philosophy deals with. It certainly does not look obsolete and is relevant both to our knowledge of the world (in areas such as epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of science) as well as to our practical lives and our political life (in areas such as practical ethics, virtue ethics and political philosophy).

>>4851346
>Because Science has proven itself kinda shitty at asking questions.

Lel, really? Do provide evidence of this. Judging by the tremendous advances in just the last 100 years, looks like they're doing a pretty damn good job.

>>4851392
Good job of answering questions, for sure.

The questions science responds to tend to be either philosophical, utilitarian, or just plain serendipitous. If science were good at asking questions it'd probably be busting it's own balls about the epistemic foundations of its practice, which is the sort of thing Philosophy of Science asks about.

>>4851365
>1) What's morally good?
Philosophy doesn't tell us this either. It's given up completely trying to obtain objective morality, and can only forms flawed schools like utilitarianism. There is nothing here other than "This is what impact X will have on the individual/society." Neither science or philosophy has the ought. Our species attempts an amble towards a half baked "whatever does least harm," and that is all we have. A scientist can analyze this and the reasons for it from every angle, though.

>>4850086
>Science has made man cocky, thinking his connections are correct.
>People all less willing to explore once they are convinced of a truth by a scientist.

Thamus is that you?
One should question everything on this scientists will agree and the same could be said about Religion, generally maybe, once one has found/been told an answer he will stop searching for it, let's make a silly example, you lost your pen, I replace it and give you another, why would you search for it anymore? How do you know is not your pen?
>>4850133
>or stuff like human sexuality.
Please
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html
http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology.html

>>4850877
>-Can I derive facts from values? No.
Not that guy you are speaking with but...
Now perhaps I may be misunderstanding you but, cant the world be explained mathematically? What kind of FACTS we are talking about? If I see that there were 4 apples on a tree and some time later 1 person took 2 I can factually say that the tree now has 2 apples.

I am fairly sure I have not understood your point.

>>4846432
Has science rendered tic-tac-toe obsolete? Philosophy is a pastime.

>>4851151
Not that anon but, why is it self contained? Isnt an higher level of philosophy if you have more knowledge on the matter you are discussing and the same could be said for all things.

This is similar to medics not knowing mathematics, being unable to question or formulate scientific papers because of their ignorance.

>>4851475
Scientists should only fact-check and listen to other scientists. They should be free to do so with no outside infetterence.

>>4851477
>Scientists should only fact-check and listen to other scientists
I do agree with this, the whole "peer review" thing.

Wait a second, were you being sarcastic there, or are you now? I am getting mixed signals.

>>4851488
probleme?

>>4851491
yes.

>>4851493
good.

>>4846432
No. It's why we are unable to solve the hard problem of thought and have still been unable to even begin to truly ask the question in a way in which modelling can be applied. When that happens, philosophy is no longer required. Until then its up to philosophers to work on posing these metaphysical questions to the scientific community.

>>4851304
Beautiful.

>>4851304
Someone write a full-length Animal Farm styled story based on this.

Philosophy is a byproduct of science. Science creates technology and tech is what makes an animal into a human. It helps do work faster, gives free time. Free time to ponder on bullshit. Then philosophy happens.

>>4846432

Of course not. Science has made philosophy mandatory. With science comes power, and power, to be used well, needs philosophy.

>>4851311
Kripke had a math degree and he is famous for his research in logic, a topic of math. That makes him a mathematician. Without his math knowledge he would have never understood higher logic, let alone contributed something new to it.

>>4851316
Logic is a field of math. Yes, mathematicians can also do philosophy, just like professional sportsmen can also walk.

>>4851321
⇒low intelligence
My IQ is >170 (professionally tested) and I'm pursuing a doctorate in a STEM field. Keep projecting, kid.

>>4851324
When decisions on economics are to be made, politicians consult experts on economics and not philosophers. Facts are more important in decision making than uneducated opinions and pseudo-deep talk about ethics. When new laws are to be passed, politicians consult lawyers and not philosophers. They form an opinion on their own before they vote and forming an opinion is something everyone can do without further qualifications. It only requires common sense. Philosophers are not more qualified to have opinions. If their only skill consists of holding opinions, i.e. something every person can do naturally, then philosophy is devoid of content.

>>4851719
>/lit/ professing academic superiority instead of demonstrating it

kek

>>4851712
>Logic is a field of math.
Logic is a branch of philosophy.

>>4851727
>>4851712

>Logic is a field of X

Hegel disagrees.

>>4851750
Logic is circular.

Mathematics agrees.

>>4851753
>Logic is circular

Then you are doing it wrong.

>>4851755
>being illogical about logic to make logic linear

>>4851346
⇒Philosophy is great at generating questions
Everyone can generate questions. Every child asks questions. The questions philosophy asks are unanswerable and pointless, e.g. "what if reality doesn't real?" The most important questions arise in science and math and are asked and answered by scientists and mathematicians.

>>4851365
The fact that philosophy fails to answer any of these questions pretty much renders it obsolete.

>>4851463
⇒Has science rendered tic-tac-toe obsolete?
Math did. There is always an optimal strategy. Most children figure this out on their own in first grade.

>>4851759
>Most children figure this out on their own in first grade.

Little babbies can't resist that final punch that renders everything before it irrelevant.

>>4851727
Even understanding the research in logic requires knowledge of math only professional mathematicians have.

>>4851759
>Math did. There is always an optimal strategy.
There is always an optimal strategy in everything, but actually knowing it, let alone performing consistently, is somehting not everyone is able to do.

If I'm still alive 500 years from now I'm going to find all of your children and blast them to bits with my plasma beam then rape their robot waifu's while your dying children cry out for someone with morality to stop me. And I will respond only with, "LOL philosophy is dead fag".

>>4851759
Simply because a goal has an optimal strategy (Whatever goal you speak of) does not mean it is the only goal or the optimal goal. What goal is science or math working for, and how does the individual place himself in that?

>>4851925
Jokes on you, I'm an anti-natalist.

>>4851925
⇒What goal is science or math working for

finding truth, objectively explaining observations

>>4851999
And what do you do with what you find?

>>4851712
logic is a sub field of philosophy. job listings are posted as looking for logic, metaphysics or ethics.
call up kripke right now and ask him if he's a philosopher.

>>4851245
Was Richard Montague a philosopher? Did he do philosophy with dumbed down FOL? How about Tim Williamson?

>>4851166
Causality has been disproved by QM? Wtf? Do any physicists actually believe that?

>>4852086
Logic is a field of math. Understanding and researching logic requires professional knowledge of mathematics. No, your dumbed down intro to quantifiers in first order logic was not the deepest possible insight in the field.

>>4852130
sure mathematicians also study math, but to derive mathematical product. it's not the same angle of study as a philosopher tinkering with nonclassical logic.

you are obviously not even in pure math otherwise the distinction would be apparent. go back to math for engineers

>>4852183
also study logic*

>>4852183
Non-classical logic is still formulated mathematically and researched by mathematicians.

>>4852240
formalization is not a mathematical project silly. meta level stuff is philosophy

>>4852264
Philosophers don't understand math.

>>4852269
Even the ones that are mathematicians?

>>4852269
Mathematicians don't understand math. They can't comprehend that it's only part of the human language, like all forms of logic.

>>4852293
>understanding math
>being sane
Pick one.

>>4852293
Math is the language of the universe.

>>4852310
We don't have the capacity to understand such a language.

>>4852336
Really, nigga?

>>4851188
i'm p sure it's dust mites eating your skin

>>4852377
>p sure

What the fuck are you doing here

>>4852310
A map is not the terriotory.

>>4852380
talking about itches
what are you doing here

>>4852130
Same with people that do any philosophy of physics, they need a professional comprehension of the field and in fact they often get a masters in it or double major. They are still philosophers.

Deleuze said that philosophy is the struggle against stupidity. Looking at your answers it seems he was quite right.

>>4852376
Uh, yeah? Where do you think our thoughts comes from, the air? They come from our bodies. Are our bodies the universe now? No? Well then, our thoughts are limited to our own individual capacities, not the universe's, for we are not the whole universe.

>>4852385
Could you give examples of such people?

>>4852390
>Are our bodies the universe now?
they are minute manifestations of it, though

>>4852390
Doesn't mean we can't understand it, at least partly.

>>4846432
No, because "science" is nothing more than a process for gaining knowledge. That's the realm of Epistemology and thus Philosophy.

>>4852406
It certainly does. Show me a single statement that is part of the universe's language and not our own—you can't do it. All statements made are relative interpretations.

>>4852391
see
>>4849737

>>4846432
Of course it has, but philosotards will never admit it.

>>4851153
Too bad burger land is where the best universities are.

>>4852750
Only for PhD students. The "undergrad" education in 'murrica is sub par and often doesn't go beyond what is taught in high school in Europe. Coincidentally most PhD students in 'murrican top universities happen to come from foreign countries.

>>4852763
Nope.
http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/dean_and_administration/gsas_fact_sheet.php
34% of Harvard PhD students are international
http://web.mit.edu/facts/graduate.html
41% at MIT
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-profile
31% at Stanford

>>4851166
>Causality has been disproved by quantum mechanics long time ago.
You don't even know what quantum mechanics is.

>>4852786
Plus, great non-U.S. universities, like Oxford and Cambridge, do have a majority of foreign postgrad students.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/camdata/postgraduate.html
And I'd bet the U.S. has more of its citizens doing postgrad work at those universities than any other country.

>>4852801
Nobody knows what quantum mechanics is. "Quantum" is science slang for "we don't know".

>>4846432
>Has science rendered philosophy obsolete?
I used to think this way when I was 18 and hadn't read any existential stuff yet.

>>4846455
>You are referring to /sci/ tier scientism fags

what's wrong with them? someone explain why /sci/ would even care about philosophy to begin with

>>4852920
Because philosophy is holding back scientific progress.

>>4852932
no. governments are holding back scientific progress by wasting all their money on wars instead of education

>>4852932
how does philosophy hold back scientific progress

>>4852996
you know, with philosophy being a completely unrelated field and mathfags thinking they know how to logic because they went through Boolean algebra 101, they have to come up with some excuse for why it's everyone else's fault they suck.

can we bring science to bear on democratic theory

maybe we can set up statistical models to compare which areas of government are best left to the democratic process and which are left to arbitrary execution by people that dont have to worry about public opinion thus can act quickly
or maybe a way to construct appendages of government that interact in the best way

>>4846432
Obsolete is the wrong word.

>>4853120
That's a job for experts at law, economics and bureaucracy.

Philosophy determines the trajectory of science. Aristotle, then Copernicus, then Einstein.

Someone will inevitably disprove someone else's view of the world or throw it on its head.

>>4846629
this

asking is the piety of thought

>>4846624
best post on /lit/

>>4855168
>Aristotle
>Copernicus
>Einstein

You do realise the science after Copernicus was concerned with 'disproving' essentially everything Aristotle said? Aristotle set back scientific progress for over a thousand years for heaven's sake.

I don't want to make a new thread for this request, but I was wondering if anyone knew what the best paperback of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is? I have free ebooks of it, but I was hoping for a good paperback (perhaps annotated?)

>>4855471
That's not how science works, kiddo.

The mass of the questions postulated by philosophy are innately human ones regarding the 'mind' 'existence' 'perception of nature' etc. I believe that behavioral neuro-science/cognitive psychology can take these questions and actually solve them. Technological advancements with brain imaging tremendously helps with this endeavor as of late.

As for philosophy being 'obsolete': maybe.
It'll certainly still be there for many years since it's likely we won't have objective knowledge towards everything anytime soon.

I think science has already adapted philosophy to fit scientific method though.

Pre-scientific method philosophy (aristotle: postulation without examination or evidence) is likely to be the true 'obsolete' culprit here.

At least that's what I think.

>>4855517

But even Aristotle and obsolete scientific texts have value. They chart our history of thought.

>>4855570
I never said they didn't have value though.

>People in this thread unironically blaming philosophy for holding back science
>Aren't well enough read or educated to realize that a lot of science was born from philosophy

>>4855664
more like
>Aren't well enough read or educated to realize that science can't answer everything

>>4855664
Even better:
>Consider science to have supplanted philosophy like chemistry supplanted alchemy
>But do not realize the continuation of philosophy demonstrates the failure of science to do this
>And think plugging their ears and yelling louder will fix everything

>>4855673
Interesting, Dr. Kandel spoke at my university recently and discussed how a scientific explanation of sex is nothing like experiencing sex yourself. He also lamented about how people always want a scientific answer about subjective matters like music or art. Ask an artist or a musician not a scientist.

>>4855746
>He also lamented about how people always want a scientific answer about subjective matters like music or art

Does anyone actually want this? Like, anyone at all?

>>4855758
people who want to be right in an argument, obviously. because they cant accept that more than one answer is correct

>>4855758
>Does anyone actually want this? Like, anyone at all?
That pseudo-trip with the arrows probably.

I entertain myself with the idea of taking a crack at a serious theory of aesthetics one day, but even then I know I have to allow for a lot of variation and may even have to jettison objectivity.

Art just isn't the same as physics... hell even physics gets really weird.

>tfw have to read David Hume
>tfw Locke was the only empiricist who wasn't retarded

kill me now

>>4855794
You don't like Hume? Are you human?

>>4846624
10/10, autistic literature browsers fell for it.

If you define the desirable properties, it is possible to "objectively measure" the worth of art. But, obviously, it's subjective from the get-go.

Science is a fucking charade.

They still have no idea what gravity is.

There is an innate human contradiction in things which even Mao discovered to be a finite reality in all things determinable. Science does give us an answer to why we are and what we are to be, but the human factor cannot be escaped and we cannot cut the human inside of us open and escape to view ourselves in another light, to understand our own logical and emotional self that seems to wish to be an identity altogether different.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

This is as true now as it was when it was first written.

>>4849171
Saying that ethics are transcendental is literally the same stupidity that fundamentalists use to prove God.

i.e. fuck off.

Quit putting your faith in old men who were limited in their thinking of their time and think for yourself.

>>4846481
Don't be pithy.

>>4846629
dis

>>4856387
Whereof one does not know what he's talking about, thereof one must be silent.

>>4846432
Mortimer Adler answered this shit half a century ago

>>4856430
No, idiot, this is not how you act, you do not act condescending and then offer no subsistence.

Explain to me how we can not empirically deduce all of the issues that Wittgenstein faced in his day, his inability to correlate the mind with what was reality, and therefore require thought absent of scientific necessity.

You can't, because you are most likely scientifically illiterate, which is why you are on the same vine of religious ignorants who think the Bible is science, or could even contain science. The diseased animal of the contemporary state of philosophy can even be seen in a religious debate between an atheist and theologian, who's sole evidence for a God is a universal ethics.

Yes, yes, I know those are not intrinsically the same thing, but the same idiotic rationalist thinking produces them.

>>4856387
You really don't know the meaning of trascendental and you confuse it with trascendent do you?

>>4855758
Yeah, go to /v/. They throw the word "objectively" around desperately. It's disgusting.

tran·scen·den·tal
ˌtransenˈdentl/
adjective
adjective: transcendental

1.
of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm.
"the transcendental importance of each person's soul"

I am still right; did you confuse them yourself?

>>4856508
In philosophy, and in Wittgenstein, transcendental has a technical meaning.
It does not mean that it concerns the spiritual, but it is not reducible to empirical data because it frames it.

Wittgenstein is not saying that ethics is a spiritual matter, but that you cannot deduce ethics from empirical data because it's our behavior that allows our possibility to produce that data.

Intellectual honesty, which is necessary for the scientific project, is not something that you deduce from empirical data, but it's what has to be already there for the scientific enterprise to come into being.

>>4856630
Thank you for the clarification, I understand it more now, and the inherent problems that are still unanswered.

>>4856503
Objectively, that's the best way to be guaranteed replies.

>>4856945
I hate you so much

>>4856961
Case in point.

>>4846495
They are two different DnD stats.