/lit/ - Literature

>>5080917
Philosophy has been dead the moment a philosopher decided to say "thinking gets us no answers...maybe I should do and prove."
and then Science was born and everything else became obsolete.

Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and rolled is wheelchair to the market-place calling out unceasingly: ‘I seek philosophy! I seek philosophy!’ As there were many people standing about who did not believe in philosophy, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is it lost? said one. Has it strayed away like a child? said another. Or does it keep itself hidden? Is it afraid of us? Has it taken a sea-voyage? Has it emigrated? the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. ‘Where is philosophy gone?’ he called out. ‘I mean to tell you! We have killed it, you and I! We are all its murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying philosophy? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? —for even philosophy putrefies! Philosophy is dead! Philosophy remains dead! And we have killed it! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife—who will wipe away the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become philosophers, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event—and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!’—Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. ‘I come too early,’ he then said, ‘I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling—it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star—and yet they have done it!

>>5080936
That story makes no sense. If it's a bright morning, why the fuck would he light a lantern?

>inb4 it's a metaphor

>>5080948
>has never read nietzche

>mfw reading retarded threads like this

philosophy is dying because of academia

you are force fed so much shit you can barely comprehend because you do not deal with the subject matter yourself, you only internalise it

then you cling to whichever 'ism' you like, and spend your life attempting to work out inherent logical inconsistencies within that ism to make it more palatable to wider society, failing to realise that every other academic is doing the exact same thing, so you have a zero sum game

like all things, the balance will come together in the end. there is too much death and not enough life in philosophy at the moment. i would say we are in the stage of 'breathing life into death'

>>5080928
So, you're like...an autist?

I'm glad I'm not.

But you...I see you.

>>5081043
>tfw looking for gf to talk about brassier with

Generally, when some wizened individual proclaims something to be dead, what they really mean is that they no longer have their finger on the pulse of whatever movement is about to come next.

Philosophy isn't dead. It will not die until the moment man stops inquiring about himself and his place in the universe.

Stephen Hawking may know black holes and big bangs, but he doesn't know shit about this subject.

>>5081074
A pseudo-intellectual anonymous NEET on 4chan sure is smarter than Stephen Hawking. You totally convinced me, bro.

>>5081074
Yeah, you're right. Philosophy is actually as dead as disco and I think I'm smarter than Stephen Hawking.

Good thing we've got you here to clarify my statements and then provide convincing arguments to the contrary.

This:
>>5081089

Was meant for you:
>>5081086

I'm so much fucking smarter than Stephen Hawking I forgot to doublecheck who I was quoting.

>>5080917
I'll tell you what I understand philosophy to be, why I think it's death is unforeseeable and why I fucks wit it.

While science and "scientism" are generated in an interest in causality, philosophy is quite different. There is no inherent meaning of the Universe, nor is there a moral or metaphysical purpose attached to humans; however, we keep on seeking purpose (inb4 absurdism: I know, I'm just laying it out for everyone). So we've got a purposeless hole and an existential itch to fill it. Philosophy steps in by looking at the things that are worth throwing into that hole. It's a way of framing questions for stuff that matters to us. It's what keeps us going. Philosophy can make science our main ethos, or it can make it obsolete by deciding there's better things to throw into the hole. It's the aesthetic of thought, if you'll allow me a literary metaphor.

This is why it will most likely never die.

>>5080917
>Recently I've been wondering why exactly philosophy stagnated in the late 19th century.
Because of a liberal status quo and intellectual cowardice obviously.
You don't get that self-righteous backpatting philosophical modernists of the early 20th century got when they attacked the institutions because they're almost all liberal or in the process of liberalizing now.

>>5080917
Philosophy has been neutered by copyright.

Also the death of viable bohemian lifestyles helped end its golden age.

>>5081097
>There is no inherent meaning of the Universe

And you know this how

>>5081124
good point. I stand corrected. We haven't found the inherent meaning of the Universe. The rest of my statement is still valid, since the purposeless hole is still there.

>>5081128
>The rest of my statement is still valid...
It is indeed

>>5080917
As far as I know these are the branches of philosophy:
Fysica
Ethica
Logica

We have physics to render fysica obselete because instead of thinking we know
Ethics will never be solved I guess, but man's nature is now scientifically explainable
Logica has been finished by Aristotle, hasn't it?

Basically, we actually know things now, rather than come up with ridiculous bullshit like social darwinism ''oh look this skull is slightly wider, it means they are lower than us'' and the likes.
The end of the Nineteenth century is when professionalization happened, every branch of knowledge became a proper discipline, technology advanced, our knowledge advanced, we've proven that human logic is fallible, and our seemingly logical conclusions are often wrong. Philosophy is fun and all, but it doesn't prove shit, and without proof, you're just speculating, and kids can do that shit already, so..

It's not dead, it will come back anyway, you know our age is about finding distractions, philosophy just needs more efforts than watching transformer4 in 3d, smoking pot, or less retributing than investing intelligently...

captcha:insoluble onersin

>>5081130
>Logica has been finished by Aristotle, hasn't it?

>>5080917
It's because virtue has declines, since there is no moral context outside of philosophy that is an imperative like religious morals, who are in a fight with philosophical morals.

>>5080936
simple minded are easily amused by nonsense

>>5081137
Fight me.
Logica is obsolete anyways.

>>5081158
>logic
>obsolete

>>5081086
>I uncritically accept the opinions of anyone who appears smart because I "love" science despite not knowing how it works

Once you hit nihilism thete's no place to go but backwards.

>>5081120
>the death of viable bohemian lifestyles
do you even NEET?

>>5080948
>being this uneducated

>mfw philosophers can't handle stephen hawking's banter

>>5081086
The chance of someone on /lit/ being more well versed in philosophy than Hawking is pretty large.

>>5081050
Cool platitudes.

>>5080917
Philosophy is dead, and Wittgenstein killed it

I'm not saying he was a bad philosopher, though

Also, the discrediting of grand systems like liberalism, Marxism, Hegelianism and Christianity

>>5082314

What?

>>5081133
In Locke's time people publicly killed and tortured animals for entertainment. People have always distracted themselves with dumb shit.

>>5082342
I posit that you're wrong.

First off Wittgenstein solved all of philosophy. Twice.

Secondly, grand narratives are bullshit, because no system of thought can encompass everything.

So, you're wrong.

QED

>>5081130
Logic has nothing to do with philosophy. It's math.

>>5082381
"First off Wittgenstein solved all of philosophy. Twice."

>solved philosophy by coming up with some equations to troll autists

ayy lmao

"Secondly, grand narratives are bullshit, because no system of thought can encompass everything."

>language
>can't encompass everything

This would be the case for an autist such as you.

>>5082342
"Philosophy is dead, and Wittgenstein killed it"

What the fuck am I even reading?

Philosophy isn't dead as such. Ethics is still round. The problem is relativism. Whenever someone makes a positive statement now, all you get is "you cannot know nuffin', disregarding the fact ignoring that and insisting there's an objective reality is as legitimate as claiming there is no objectivity. People seem to have forgotten philosophy isn't always about "lel what is the meaning of life", but its often about developing tools with which we scrutinize the Universe we perceive.

>>5081086

Stephen Hawking is good at physics, that doesn't mean he knows everything. Look at that time he claimed any alien will always be aggressive because only aggressive creatures reach can develop technology, ignoring the fact that our technology was born from individuals cooperating peacefully. Most of contemporary physicists "attacks" on philosophy are nothing more than a callous attempts to secure funding in academics for STEM subjects. Take Lawrence Krauss. How the fuck can he himself progressive, and then attack philosophy? The progressive movement is based on a (twisted) form of ethics, which is philosophy.

>>5082466
>scrutinize the Universe we perceive

ayy lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0VFbJamSY

>>5082466
>the Universe we perceive
>pic related

>>5082453

>ayy lmao
>making pics about your lame catchphrases

i'm sure you'll reply with it but i just want you to know that you are by far the saddest cunt in this thread

>>5082466
⇒Ethics

So ... which ethical problems have been solved? What is the objective solution to the trolley problem and why is it switching twice?

>>5082489
>getting some newfag buttmad
ALL BECOMING AYY LMAO

>>5082484

I perceive things. I see apes that look like me walking around and communicating, I see a big light in the sky and I see big brown sticks poking out the ground with green shit sprouting from the top. I'm in an unfamiliar situation, and I don't even know if what I'm seeing is real. Its like I'm cast out at sea and have no idea where I am or where I'm going. What do you do when you are in a situation you are unfamiliar with? You use principles with which to scrutinize the situation. "I don't know this man, I look at his facial expressions to figure out what kind of a person he is and use formal language as we are unfamiliar". "I'm stuck in a forest, but the Sun always seems to rise and fall in the same directions, so I can use that to orientate myself".

This is what philosophy is about. No, you can't ultimately know whether what you see is objective reality, but you can use tools to navigate whatever the hell it is. Of course, there is an objective reality because if there wasn't, I or you wouldn't be here to talk about it. Each human exists in a prison of their own mind, but by talking to other humans and seeing if they observe the same thing, we can work out what is real and what is not.

>>5082491

If you're going by the NAP which is the most useful and consistent ethical system, the answer to the trolley problem is to do nothing. If you don't pull the switch, you haven't caused any deaths and are therefore morally neutral. If you pull that switch, no matter who you save you've chosen to kill someone and are morally wrong. The answer is to not do anything.

>>5080928
/thread

>>5082523
⇒If you're going by the NAP

Guess what, faggot. I don't. I fucking love aggression.

>Has anyone written a book or an academic text on the topic?

I don't think you're ready for an answer yet if this is still in question.

>>5082564

That's fine. You can love aggression as much as you want, so long as you're not violent towards anyone. At that point, they are morally right in stopping you in anyway they can.

>>5082571
Why should I care about other people's feelings?

>>5082579

If for no other reason then because you get something out of cooperating with them. Unless you become a hermit and get food and build your house yourself.

>>5082585
Bitch please. As a self-diagnosed sociopath I know exactly how to manipulate the people around me. Nonetheless I fucking love to hurt their feelings.

It is possible to conceive that in an utterly deterministic system, there may exist some parts of it which, while causally connected to the rest of the system at some distant remove, are locally disconnected from the rest of the system is a causal sense. How shall science perceive these elements of the system?

Science's epistemology is twofold: observation and correlation. All that science knows, it knows because it was observed, or because the correlated patterns of its observations prove the existence of unobserved phenomenon. Locally disconnected elements of a system cannot be observed, as they are not acting locally on the system. Their distant links might be observed, but it is possible to conceive of links distant such that no observational method might reveal them. Correlation of known observations cannot reveal them, because they are disconnected and any such correlation would not in fact represent actual causation.

So how are we to discover these potential parts of our disconnected system? How are we Columbuses to discover new continents that we have no way of discovering?

That is simple: we have to be like Columbus; we have to make mistakes; make fools of ourselves. Go on adventures, do things without reason except that they have not been done before, or that they have been done and forgotten. We must create our own new observations like ants wandering; for though the ant has no way of knowing where the food lies, yet she sacrifices herself in droves and the food is efficiently found for the colony - a feat impossible save that the ants stumble blindly into a lethal world they cannot understand, and observe it without knowing what to look for.

In addition to the rigor of science, if we are to know all that can be known, we must devise an additional epistemology of foolery to search out and find that which patient research would pass by, unable to see.

>>5082593

Feelings aren't physical so they aren't covered by the NAP. The focus of Anarcho-Capitalism is teaching people how to identify and cut out bad relationships. As long as you do not physically harm anyone, you're morally neutral.

>>5080917
Have you not heard of language or metaethics?

>>5082628
Language is being studied by linguistics (a science). Metaethics is just a fedoric attempt to disguise "muh feelings" behind eloquent neologisms.

>>5082635
(Just answer "no" next time.)

>>5082611
⇒Feelings aren't physical

Watch out, guys. We're dealing with a dualist over here. Tell us more about how you believe the soul is separate from the body. How hard did you fail your high school biology class? Or are you from burgerland where they teach the bible instead of biology?

>>5082593
>Bitch please. As a disregarded, talentless autist I know exactly how to manipulate the imaginary people around me. Nonetheless I fucking love to hurt their imaginary feelings.

Fix'd that one for you, my friend.

>>5082642

I don't believe the soul is separate from the body, I don't believe the soul exists. When you make someone sad, you don't physically cause the sadness, their immune system induces sadness as a reaction. That doesn't mean however that we shouldn't teach people not to make others sad or punish those who do, merely that its not morally wrong.

>>5082640
I'm more educated than you. Deal with it.

>>5082593
lol

>>5082650
⇒their immune system induces sadness as a reaction
This is a great quote for /sci/'s "stupid things stupid people said" thread. You really did fail your biology class, didn't you?

>>5082647
What's the matter? Can't handle my alpha swag, nerd?

>>5082650
>Sadness induced by immune system
I have to say, I agree with the anon who believes you to have failed high school biology.

>>5082661

It does, or are you retarded? Someone says something which a person interprets as bad, and its their body that releases the corresponding hormones. The very fact some people can avoid the feeling or not feel sad is proof its self-induced.

>>5082667

Then how retarded does it make him, since he's losing a debate with someone who failed high school biology.

>>5082673
You have no idea what the immune system is, do you?

>>5082676
⇒he
lol nope

>>5082673
Emotions are caused by neuropeptides - "signalling molecules" used by neurons to communicate with each other. This has absolutely nothing to do with the immune system.

They can certainly have effects on one another, but they are not one and the same.

>>5082474
Hawking is mostly famous because of his popular science bullshit. There are many physicists and mathematics that are probably as skilled and more skilled than him. Most of the stuff he does is self-marketing.

>>5082687

Yes, its a system your body uses to fight off disease, such as white blood cells attacking bacteria or your body heating up to kill of bacteria.

>lol nope

Oh shit, sorry "xir".

>>5082694

I thought that was part of the immune response. Oh well, not a big deal.

>>5082705
"Xir" is not a word.

>>5082712

xomeone didn't learn their pronouns.

>>5082523
>Of course, there is an objective reality because if there wasn't, I or you wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Stop posting and hang yourself.

>>5082728

How about no. I love how you don't actually present an argument.

>Philosophy is dead.
-A scientist
>Science is dead.
-A philosopher
>Shit just got real!
-4chan

>>5082342
>discrediting of liberalism and Christianity

Go on...

>>5082635
>linguistics (a science).

Some fields of linguistics are science (like neurolinguistics) while others are no better than womens studies or critical theory.

>>5082827
Women's studies is a science too.

>>5080917

OP you're so blind

>Has anyone written a book or an academic text on the topic?

Hope you'll be able to identify the problem by yourself

>>5082607
> the one post in the thread saying something novel
>/lit/ totally ignores it because cannot into philosophy

inb4 >it's so stupid I though it was a troll
>wrong ipso facto

no, you're all just edgelords, not actual thinkers willing to be wrong if that's what it takes to move forward

>>5080917
Philosophy has evolved into focusing on specific niches in our modern lives, ie media, communications, etc.

>>5082876
I don't get it.

>>5080928

>>5082695
While his image is very inflated, let's not just hand-wave him away. He's a very talented physicist and one of the (possibly just "the," but I wouldn't really know) leading experts on black holes and relevant subjects about space-time, and to his credit, whenever he loses a dispute with another scientist, he is fairly quick to admit it. He's not just some random dude duping the public into thinking he's smart.

>>5082726
>ze zy zo zum

Anyone want to write Zack the Giant Zilla?

>>5080917
>Dawkins and Harris who merely apply common sense to theological arguments

some people don't understand that 'common sense' isn't something good

'common sense' it's a short-sighted logic of everyday practice, of things which you can touch yourself, common sense rules out even such things as space-time unity or the limit of the speed of light, the more so it shouldn't be used for poking at philosophical ideas

>>5080928
that's a piece of bullshit actually

philosophy answers 'why'
science answers 'how'

also the basics of science which proves that it gives worthy results it's philosophy too

>>5082879

Aaaaand with that the darkness of /lit/ continues to hold its tiny flicker of warming light.

Keep fighting the good fight, brother.

>>5082593
By far the edgiest thing Ive seen today

>>5082607
This is interesting. Could you clarify how this epistemology of foolery should/would be constructed?

>>5082607

>>5084484
The problem is that philosophy does not organize by topic but by author. In science you discuss Einstein's General Relativity, with emphasis on the theory not the man. Anyone passing by can say it has to do with time and space.
In philosophy you discuss Hume or Nietzsche which has no bearing to an observer what the hell the topic is unless they read the work of those authors themselves.

Philosophy is important since it seeks out questions that we will have to answer (which requires through knowledge of the subject, no way a 20-25 yrs old will have). But until dead white nigga worship is stopped, philosophy continue to be a joke.

>>5085239

This. Philosophy teaching in University is a joke. In my experience, and those of others I know, tutorials were a joke (people still saying shit like "....just like in the Matrix/Minority Report/Spider Man."), the course not rigorous or challenging with little to no emphasis on the evolution of philosophical ideas outside of your standard History of Western Thought (which itself is rushed).

If philosophy wants to be taken seriously then Universities need to start upping there games.

>>5085263
>there

>>5082607
Intersting. I like and agree with the concept of drawing together conclusions without a cause to connect them. Could you give an example of a locally disconnected cause? Also, perhaps elaborate on what this anon said. >>5085180
Lit, we have a mystery to solve.

>>5080917
>contemporary philosophers
>Dawkins and Harris
>no mention of Peter Singer

>>5084484
⇒philosophy answers 'why'

Philosophy never answered any question. If science and logic don't answer the "why", then nobody does.

>>5085405
you seem to think there's a dichotomy between philosophy and logic.

also, philosophy investigates what matters and why it matters to us. so it pretty much answers everything that is worth questioning and deals with what makes us human. but you wouldn't be able to appreciate that, because autism, right?

>>5085405
You shouldn't group logic (which is deductive reasoning from a priori axioms) with science (which is inductive reasoning from empirical data). Philosophy ideally follows the same method as logic, but uses natural language as opposed to formal language.

>>5085417
⇒you seem to think there's a dichotomy between philosophy and logic.
Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosophers.

⇒philosophy investigates what matters and why it matters to us
Evolution, common sense and capitalism decide what matters. No philosophy needed. Also philosophy has never made any definite decisions and never mattered.

⇒so it pretty much answers
It never answered anything.

⇒because autism
I took the official autism test on /b/ and turned out to be normal, just as expected.

>Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosophers.
I'm not even gonna honour this statement with more wor

>Evolution, common sense and capitalism decide what matters. No philosophy needed. Also philosophy has never made any definite decisions and never mattered.
Evolution and 'common sense'(whatever the fuck that is) has dictated morality up to a certain degree. We're way past that. We are humans that feel the need to find and give meaning to things, as there isn't/we haven't been able to find inherent meaning in things.

Capitalism decides what 'matters' because we allow it to. What studies social, economic, and political system and how and why we want to engage with their roots? What is philosophy?

>I took the official autism test on /b/ and turned out to be normal, just as expected.
I was using the term 'autist' figuratively, as defined by the critical metalanguage of 4chan. You need not be familiar with this metalanguage, as the figurative sense of 'autism' is obvious from in the context of my post. This is why you are autistic anon. Also for subscribing exclusively to what seems to be capitalistic utilitarianism. That is autistic. I am sorry that you can't feel the joy of life. I am glad that you are unaware of it though.

>>5080917
Philosophy is dead because science popularizers claim that science, the mathematical study of phenomena, will allow us to eventually gain absolute objective knowledge.

>>5085467
⇒I'm not even gonna honour this statement with more wor
Good for you We don't need more of your "wor".

⇒We are humans that feel the need to find and give meaning to things, as there isn't/we haven't been able to find inherent meaning in things.
And that's why philosophy is useless. It failed to answer the question for meaning. After thousands of years philosophy still cannot tell us the objective meaning of life. Looks like this will be another problem for SCIENCE.

⇒What studies social, economic, and political system and how and why we want to engage with their roots?
Science does. Social science, economics, political science.

⇒What is philosophy?
a waste of time

⇒Also for subscribing exclusively to what seems to be capitalistic utilitarianism.
Your reading comprehension is really bad.

⇒I am sorry that you can't feel the joy of life.
I can and I do. My life is better than yours. That's why I don't need to escape into useless childish pseudo-intellectualism.

>>5085487
You should write a book

>>5085487
you cannot be this pic related. jumping on your autistic cho choo train, as I have nothing better to do at the moment.
>Good for you We don't need more of your "wor".
now, since you are an intellectual athlete who doesn't concern himself with petty things like philosophy, do some of that mental aerobics and think why I haven't finished the word and wrote ''wor''
>And that's why philosophy is useless. It failed to answer the question for meaning. After thousands of years philosophy still cannot tell us the objective meaning of life. Looks like this will be another problem for SCIENCE.
Science is dealing with causality. Philosophy isn't a generator of a metanarrative. While it hasn't given us an answer to inherent meaning, it has sure given us a lot of meanings. It also has the power to give science meaning, or make it obsolete. Both options are just as valid, but philosophy likes science, because it uses logic without emotion.
You know, logic, the thing, that philosophy first observed, then conceptualized and theorized...
>Science does. Social science, economics, political science.
You clearly don't understand what philosophy concerns itself with.
>Your reading comprehension is really bad.
You were saying capitalism gives us 'meaning' to which I said that philosophy allows it to. If capitalism gives you metaphysical and moral purpose, then you must subscribe to it.
>I can and I do. My life is better than yours. That's why I don't need to escape into useless childish pseudo-intellectualism.
Your life might be better. But that's because its autistic parameters don't ask much of it. Satisfaction is easier in a limited being that can't look upon itself

Autism.jpg

>>5085487
How do you think you would fare in an argument against some bright university philosophy professors? You should try talking to some on Twitter and say that their profession is irrelevant. If know you're right then why not? You've got nothing to lose except respect for them when they can't comprehend your godly arguments.

>>5085487
>a waste of time
I really don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Even if you believe philosophy is not a tool for obtaining answers to answerable questions, at the very least it would not be a waste of time any more than art would. Philosophy offers new possibilities for our lives which we can realize as individuals. That's not a science, but I don't see how it can be called a waste of time by anyone who understands that personal decisions for direction require more than scientific data to make.

>>5085491
Maybe some day I'll write a textbook.

>>5085553
⇒you cannot be this pic related.
Of course I can't. I'm not a boy.

⇒do some of that mental aerobics and think why I haven't finished the word and wrote ''wor''
Because you're illiterate?

⇒Science is dealing with causality.
Hahaha, nope. You don't know shit about science. Some quantum physics explicitly violates causality and in many other areas of science you'll find non-causal processes. Go to school, kid.

⇒While it hasn't given us an answer to inherent meaning, it has sure given us a lot of meanings.
Show us the "meaning" philosophy gave. Unless you mean it gave a new meaning tp the phrase "useless pseudo-intellectualism".

⇒It also has the power to give science meaning, or make it obsolete.
Keep dreaming. Science works and science made philosophy obsolete.

⇒You know, logic, the thing, that philosophy first observed, then conceptualized and theorized...
Logic stopped being philosophy and became math. This happened almost 200 years ago. How hard did you fail in school?

⇒You clearly don't understand what philosophy concerns itself with.
Neither do philosophers understand. They cannot even define their own field.

⇒If capitalism gives you metaphysical and moral purpose, then you must subscribe to it.
Metaphysics is ridiculous infantile nonsense and utterly meaningless. Morality is for the weak.

⇒Your life might be better. But that's because its autistic parameters don't ask much of it.
Nice projection, fucktard. I'm sexier, wealthier, smarter and more popular than you.

>>5085615
⇒How do you think you would fare in an argument against some bright university philosophy professors?
Invite them to 4chan and I'll debate the shit out of them. Although I'm sure they'll quickly resort to denial and ad hominem attacks just like every other philosotard I debated.

⇒You should try talking to some on Twitter
With my twitter account? Are you trying to dox me?

>>5085628
⇒at the very least it would not be a waste of time any more than art would
Art has a purpose and is aesthetically pleasing. Can't say the same about philosophy.

⇒Philosophy offers new possibilities for our lives which we can realize as individuals.
So does watching youtube videos. Even more effectively.

⇒personal decisions for direction require more than scientific data to make.
They require common sense, life experience etc but no philosophy.

>>5085640
you must be a troll.

the only thing that's worth responding to and that might be of value to others is the part where you mention quantum physics and causality. it doesn't violate it, but challenges the paradigm of cause-effect, in that it is saying that cause can follow effect, or they can be contemporaneous.
As this anon pointed out >>5082607 (give it a read, although I am sure you'll be too autistic to get anything out of it), science is observation and correlation. It serves to explain and predict. Inherently, it has nothing to do with moral or metaphysical purpose, unless you develop a philosophy that gives it meaning.

>>5085658
>thinking ⇒-chan is a troll
just blow in from stupidville?

>>5085650
>Art has a purpose and is aesthetically pleasing. Can't say the same about philosophy.
Quite wrong. Mishima's Sun and Steel is very aesthetically pleasing and also about aesthetics as philosophical purpose. Nietzsche's works are very aesthetically pleasing, and quite concerned with aesthetics, particularly The Birth of Tragedy, which posits the idea of meaning and purpose as a purely *aesthetic* value

>So does watching youtube videos. Even more effectively.
I'm not sure which YouTube videos you watch, but I haven't found that to be the case with any of them

>They require common sense, life experience etc but no philosophy.
Common sense doesn't exist except as cultural assumption, unless you mean sensory input, which really doesn't the issue, since of course it is a requisite, it's a requisite for science as well.

>>5085640
are you a girl then? please be in london.

>>5085640
you mad that there's phenomena with determinable effects that aren't empirically locatable?? lol yeah you mad. science = shit. stay a plebby epistemelogical reductionist, prole.

>>5085663
whether you're a troll or not, the rest of my argument still stands. also, while you quote quantum physics for the sake of sophistry, others understand it.

>>5085658
⇒quantum physics and causality. it doesn't violate it, but challenges the paradigm of cause-effect
This is the same fucking thing.

⇒science is observation and correlation. It serves to explain and predict.
And it works.

⇒Inherently, it has nothing to do with moral or metaphysical purpose
Do I really need to repeat myself? Metaphysics is pointless and meaningless. Morality is an evotionary disadvantage and makes you weak.

>>5085685
>Morality is an evotionary disadvantage and makes you weak.
why didn't you say so from the start? you made me doubt your autism.
also, pls be a grill in london. I'd still tap your utilitarian, popular, sexy ass.

The scientific method made philosophy antiquated. Science is a form of philosophy where you answer questions by performing experiments, regular philosophy is making observations and using them as examples for analogies which are somewhat unfounded, Descartes wax analogy for instance.

>>5085690
>The scientific method made philosophy antiquated.

lol...the scientific method has a domain of applicability and it's as narrow as your dick is small.

>>5085689
Isn't utilitarianism a morality?

>>5082474
There's a SMBC for every situation.

>>5085706
'tis. no point in arguing with the sexy robot though; I'm not mad enough to adapt my quest to remove her from her autism to everything that she doesn't understand about my posts, ad infinitum. On the other hand I would very much enjoy having sex with her, if she's a grill (as implied in "can't be pic related. I'm not a boy") and in London.

>>5085666
⇒Mishima's Sun and Steel is very aesthetically pleasing
⇒Nietzsche's works are very aesthetically pleasing
⇒the idea of meaning and purpose as a purely *aesthetic* value
And how does this make philosophy valid or give philosophy a purpose? It doesn't. Learn some logic and try to understand my post before replying to me.

⇒I'm not sure which YouTube videos you watch, but I haven't found that to be the case with any of them
You must be blind then.

⇒Common sense doesn't exist
I pity your disability. Every normally functioning human being has common sense.

>>5085689
⇒utilitarian

You have no idea what this word means. How about you google the wikipedia page and then let someone smarter than you (for example your brother who has down syndrome) explain to you why it isn't applicable to my posts ITT?

>>5085729
googled it. you were bashing morality for making us weak and slowing down our 'evolution' (wut?). this implies you subscribe to utilitarianism. also you can't not have morality, unless you're brain damaged, or on a different spectrum of autism than yourself - the kind that would be illegal for me to have sex with.

so how bout that asl?

>>5085726
Philosophy doesn't need to be "valid" (according to which criteria?) to not be a waste of time.

Philosophy has a purpose for the same reason art does, because it promotes pleasure-thought and pleasure-feeling.

>>5085749
>social Darwinism is utilitarianism

>>5085759
why are you addressing this to me. does my post imply the opposite or does it not suggest that social darwinism is a form of utilitarianism

>>5085708
does this logic work in reverse?

>>5085762
Utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness or minimizing pain. Social Darwinism is about maximizing advancement as more important than either concern.

the questions of origin [being alluded to in the pic] are (academically) now mostly taken up in comparative myth and ritual studies, anthropology, etc.

>>5085749
⇒slowing down our 'evolution'
Your reading comprehension as well as your high school biology knowledge are non-existent. Are you american?

⇒this implies you subscribe to utilitarianism.
Nope. Why didn't you follow my advice? I knew you wouldn't understand it on your own, that's why I told you to ask someone to explain it to you.

⇒also you can't not have morality
I can. I'm a sociopath. I'm superior.

I became insecure about my intelligence when I started reading philosophy because I found all of it so damn difficult to understand, sometimes even more difficult than (pure) math. Then I realized the reason I had difficult understanding it was because it's all nonsense, and you can't understand nonsense. I wasn't stupid, just honest.

>>5085776

>I'm a sociopath. I'm superior.

One reason why sociopathy does not make you superior is due to its tendency to enable you to say hilariously cringe-worthy things without ever realising how laughable it makes you appear. Your cluelessness adds to the hilarity factor, btw.

>>5080917

If you think philosophy can ever be dead you don't understand what philosophy is.

And why whine about "no one coming up with anything new anymore"? No idea was EVER new. The idea that ideas can be "invented" is just pompous and absurd. Some people are remembered more than others, for ultimately trivial reasons. You can't prove that anyone was ever the first to think of something, since the vast majority of people's ideas go completely unvoiced anyway. Most people don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to voice their philosophy because most people aren't petite bourgeois ivory tower professional academics.


What, you thought those were the only type of people who are capable of THINKING? Please.

>>5081130
>Logica has been finished by Aristotle, hasn't it?

>>5085640
>morality is for the weak

Hilarious troll

>>5085798
>I don't understand it so it's nonsense
I cannot believe somebody could be this vain. So you believe some of the smartest men in history are all just a bunch of posers? You should feel insecure about your intelligence you fedora tipping retard. Get the fuck over yourself and realize not everything is in your comprehension. It's thinking like this that has driven philosophy to stagnation.

>>5085776
>I can. I'm a sociopath. I'm superior.

>>5085776

>I'm a sociopath.

Must suck to be the hollow shell of a human being and never know what it is to be a real person.

>>5085776
Why would an American want you to be in London for the purpose of having sex with you?

The phrase, "Stop liking what I don't like," just repeats in my head while I read your posts.

>>5087424
Yeah, must suck to not be a sociopath :\

>>5088036
⇒Why would an American want you to be in London
"Pls be in London" is a shitty catchphrase from /lit/.

>>5087424
Sociopathy is the next step of human evolution. Deal with it, moralfag.

>>5085650
In short, you're saying: Philosophy is useless.
There's a ton of counterexamples.
Philosophy of Language has influenced Linguistics. Philosophy of Language and Philosophy of Mind have been an integral part of Cognitive Science since its conception. There's a blurry line between informal math and Philosophy of Mathematics; new Logics and other developments have been born from there. And consider political philosophy. John Rawls, for instance, is widely taught in law school. Ethics too are probably generally taught/applied in certain fields.
Anyway, there are more examples to be given and they can be presented in a more nuanced manner. To me it seems you're arguing from ignorance. Science, math and philosophy are in the business of explaining, but most people have misconceptions about the latter due to its not being as widely taught, as understood, and its not having satisfyingly 'truth-like' results like the others do. But that the problems that philosophy deals with are inherently more 'open' doesn't mean that they can't be solved satisfyingly and productively.

>>5088332
Prove it.

>>5082733
Not him but posts like that show how unfamiliar you are with these arguments. It might take more effort than it's worth for someone to respond to you.

I don't know if you meant to use objective the way you did. It seems likely that there is some kind of reality, but we have no way to tell if it is objective since we are only given a quite subjective interpretation. I think it is similar to the problem of solipsism isn't it? We only are sure(to some degree) that we exist, and although the argument can seem silly, there is no way to prove or disprove it. However, no matter how silly or unsubstantial it is, we are unable to agree on an objective reality.

>>5082523
>No, you can't ultimately know whether what you see is objective reality
>Of course, there is an objective reality
These sentences were seriously right after the other.

>>5080917
Philosophy is alive and well. Certain areas are healthier than others. Robert C. Solomon did a bunch of writings on the philosophy of emotions during the mid-late 1900's, I think, he died recently. But /lit/ doesn't give a shit about modern philosophers, they won't care about good ol' Bob Solomon for another 200 years. Then everyone will flip their shit and think he's brilliant or something. That's just how philosophy works, m'boy -- Aristotle may have been respected in his time, but he wasn't known as "THE philosopher" until long after his death.

>>5082431

>Implying math isn't a subfield of logic
>Implying logic isn't a subfield of philosophy

>>5088527
Logic is a subset of math but not all math can be grasped by logic. This was proved by Gödel. Stop embarrassing yourself, kid, and take a math class.

>>5082431
>>5088556
Logic is not simply a subset of Math.
It is a branch of philosophy.
It has overlap with Math and Linguistics.
It also has overlap elsewhere, to a lesser extent.

>Describing maths in terms of sets and subsets and then talking about incompleteness in the next sentence.

>>5088655
You have no idea what you're talking about. Formal logic is a branch of math. To some extent it can be applied in linguistics, just like other branches of math can be applied in other branches of science. But it is and remains a branch of math.

>>5088665
Yes, actually I do. This is my field. At my University, which is one of the best American universities, it is taught out of the philosophy department, by philosophers. We get a lot of math, computer science, and linguistic students though.

Formal logic is not a branch of math. Couldn't you have even bothered to read?

Thousands of years of philosophy can be fully compressed into one small footnote at the bottom of the scientific method, reading "You cannot objectively verify." But that's all philosophy can do.

>>5088676
>formalized science shows up after 6,000-10,000 years of human civilization
>a couple centuries later STEM-fags proceed to retroactively take credit for everything good that ever happened

To be fair it's mostly the retarded engineers moreso than the actual scientists and mathematicians who regurgitate this bullshit.

If the acronym didn't need a vowel those dumbfucks would probably not even be included.

>>5088693
>The linguistic construct superimposed on top of the region it attempted to encompass shifted
>Philosophy-fags cry over their crumbled empire.

Philosophy isn't dead.

How are laws formed? You can't just take a set of empirical data and justifiably claim that you should choose one course over another. Hence the importance of philosophy in law, and why philosophers have the easiest time getting into law.

Science and math were never in a position to supplant philosophy. They don't examine even remotely the same things. In fact, philosophical assumptions prop up both of them.

>>5088700
I've read that philosophers tend to be rather stoic.

>>5088707

right up until they cry over a horse in turin

>>5088711
Nietzsche was insane

Philosophy isn't dead it just smells that way because Postmodernism shat on it.

>>5088715
pomo pls go

>>5088703
⇒How are laws formed?

The legislative process is described somewhere in your country's constitution (unless you live in a libertarian utopia like Somalia where they have no laws). It usually involves the parliament and the government. Philosophers are never mentioned explicitly. Personally I wouldn't want my country's laws made by someone who doesn't even believe that this world (or even he himself) exists.

Stand-up comedians are the closest we have to philosophers now. They basically try to come up with philosophy while being funny, depending on the comedian. George Carlin was a fantastic philosopher in some ways, but he's pretty well hated on 4chan.

>>5088722
>Implying I reply to arrow posts

These threads are consistently the worst threads on /lit/.

>>5080948
this in a nutshell is the austist/reddit/atheistic mindset

we need to study it
anon get a trip

>>5088332
tis indeed a shitty catchphrase. But I am also in London and feel that our social dynamic would make for a pleasant sexual experience.

>>5088789
Yet you cannot answer the question.

>>5088332
>"Pls be in London" is a shitty catchphrase from /lit/.
/fa/

>>5089836
/fit/

>>5085776
>I can. I'm a sociopath. I'm superior.
tfw you realise you've been arguing with a 10 year old.

>>5091639
But 4chan is 18+. You shouldn't be here.

>>5093232
hash
tag
rekt

>>5080948
Diogenes of Sinope did it.

>>5080917
stephen hawking is wrong about this.
saying that philosophy is dead IS a philosophy.
fucking stephen is a dumb cunt. I bet all that physics shit about imaginary time is made up too.

>>5090011
seconding
big guy

>>5088516
>/lit/ doesn't give a shit about modern philosophers
I feel as though you've never been on /lit/ before.

>>5093265
Diogenes is basically just your crazy uncle, except for some reason he became famous for thousands of years. He's like the patron saint of crazy uncles, I guess.

>>5080917
The sciences took over. Biology and neuroscience now tells us more about how we perceive the world than philosophy ever could. Alchemists, philosophers, they are now the same.

>>5093478
>doesn't know what the question asks
>misses the 180 posts
>offers obtuse input

>>5093447
read some books, m8

>>5093478
OP here. Thanks for the good answer.

what about this guy

>>5082607

>he doesn't believe human beings can perceive every nuance of existence

this is the 21st century, you know

It need scarcely be emphasized that nothing we shall have to say is aimed against the methods of Science in their proper sphere or is intended to throw the slightest doubt on their value. But to preclude any misunderstanding on this point we shall, wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with slavish imitation of the method and language of Science, speak of “scientism” or the “scientistic” prejudice. Although these terms are not completely unknown in English, they are actually borrowed from the French, where in recent years they have come to be generally used in very much the same sense in which they will be used here. It should be noted that, in the sense in which we shall use these terms, they describe, of course, an attitude which is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed. The scientistic as distinguished from the scientific view is not an unprejudiced but a very prejudiced approach which, before it has considered its subject, claims to know what is the most appropriate way of investigating it.

The Counter-Revolution Of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1955)

>>5093447
He is epitome of the Uncle Cool. But other than that his ethic system is very strong and practical.

>>5093478
joke's on you alchemists are baller

That quote in the OP would have been a lot more hardhitting if he'd actually definitively answered the questions in it, huh?

>tfw you have written the book that will revive philosophy from the ashes and it's about 3 months from being published

just wait

>>5095269
There is no such thing as "scientism".

>>5081128
What if we have and then the point of philosophy is evangelizing it?

>>5082642
You're going all out with this bait, butcI'm going to bite in the hopes that someone else learns something.
>Muh C-causation
How do you know causation even exists, nerd? To prove causation, you have to show that A and B are contingent and concordant AT ALL TIMES ALWAYS. THAT MEANS IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD OR SITUATION.
GOOD LUCK PROVING THAT FAGLORD
All you can prove is correlation. Yeah, there's an interaction problem with dualism, but monism has one too. Eat shit.

>>5096806
⇒How do you know causation even exists, nerd?

In some quantum mechanical contexts it doesn't.

>>5096806
>FAGLORD
go back to reddit

>>5096810
Oh yeah? Which ones?

>>5096810
So you admit that causation doesn't exist in at least some cases. Which isn't my point anyways because you can't prove causation in ANY case at all.
You understand that this fundamentally undermines all of science?

>>5096822
lol, good question, anon.

>>5096810
aww, you have already been educated on how some fields of quantum physics violate 'causation'. here >>5085658. of course you'll say ''b-b-but if it only challenges the paradigm of cause-effect in that cause can follow effect, or contemporaneity, then it's not causation''. wrong, it's still causality. you don't understand time though. while some quote quantum physics, others understand it.