/lit/ - Literature

>engaging in philosophy for 'truth'
>not doing it because it's fun

yes marxist science has indeed solved the problems philosophy was unable to answer as philosophy merely stems from the material conditions of the time, and is always bourgeois and usually reactionary (as it maintains the relations to production in each epoch)

when marx founded the science of history, and lenin et al. expanded upon it, only science was able to begin solving problems of everyday life.

"The belief that philosophy is dead and that science has solved all problems is a philosophy in itself."

*unable to comprehend the sentence, his head explodes*

(Aside) "Psssh. . . nothing personnel" *teleport*

*pull memearrow out of my pocket*
>Implying the way science is done isn't built on a foundation of philosophy

>>6471803
too many memes 4 meme

>>6471803
What is the purpose of your life?

>tfw philosophy scumbags think talking about the semiotics of whacking off or whatever is as rigorous and important a thing as trying to find a cure for cancer and exploring outer space

smh

>>6471803
Explain meaning, or lack there of life, using only scientific dialogue.

>>6471913
Philosophy is about purpose, also. I'm sure you don't need to masturbate, but for most people it serves some kind of purpose, and their ability to examine that lies in philosophy and critical thinking. Maybe I would love to be an emotionless robot-- and philosophy is the key to examining not only the validity of that desire, but the ability to enact that desire.

I thought philosophy was the process of coming up with a hypothesis, and science was the process of checking it

>>6471803

Nice blind belief in the principle of induction, faggot.

>>6471803

>Show me a SINGLE thing that philosophy is useful for in this modern day and age"

The disability check you get so you can go another day without a job.

>>6471803
I would probably say "/lit/ -- literature" and hide the thread.

I've yet to see a single serious or worthwhile reply to this question.

>>6472006

I've yet to see a single serious or worthwhile question.

>>6472006
What else do you expect from modern-day philosophers?

>>6471803
>trigger discipline

Just kill me

>>6472017

Yes, all of us on /lit/ are philosophy majors, and not in various fields or outright not involved educationally (as are you). I'm sure every other board has even the smallest capacity for asking the most basic social questions.

>>6472006
philosophers diagnose the ills of society. they don't solve problems, they create new concepts and questions to shape discourse.

scientists create new ills of society through bad technology (not all tech is bad, but most of it is). it doesnt solve any problems either. the reason everyone loves it so much is ideology.

thats all there is to it.

>>6472027
ugh.

go whine about capitalism or something.

>>6471803
If science has all the answers, what's humanity's score at this point? You can't answer that question without delving into many different questions, including:
What is the purpose of humanity?
What is the measure of the human species' value?
Is science actually increasing our species lifespan? Is sentience?

One could argue that a lack of sentience would increase our species longevity, allowing us another couple million years at least, which might increase certain perceptions of our value. So maybe you can tell me why science is working, and why sentience makes us better?

>>6472040

Go whine about how science isn't considered outside of society, but a product of it.

Science can't really say anything important about politics, morals, ethics or the arts, so there are still areas where philosophy is needed to provide a framework for discussion.

>>6471803
if science is so great then show me how it can prove being useful is better than not being

>>6471823

Marxism isn't a science... It doesn't even resemble a science superficially. Just because Marx or Engels said something doesn't make it true.

>>6472053
Yeah, are we using a definition of science that doesn't include social science? That's murka

>>6472038

>philosophers diagnose the ills of society

everyone does that, not just professional philosophers.

>scientists create new ills of society through bad technology

and philosophers create new ills of society through bad ideas/philosophy

>not all tech is bad, but most of it is

like what? try to be more specific. (and yes, we all know the atomic bomb is a bad idea, try to be original too.)

>it doesn't solve any problems either

the whole point of science is to solve problems. whether you find these problems interesting is another question though.

>ideology

oh ffs...

>thats all there is to it

yeah, case closed, kojak. everyone go home.

>>6472073

Social science is quite obviously not a science. Read some Feynman or Popper.

>>6472073
>social ''science''

ahahahahahaahahaha

>>6472119

>science is outside of social

Why is it that STEM majors are so oblivious? When they're assumed to be the most intelligent?

>>6472092
>like what? try to be more specific. (and yes, we all know the atomic bomb is a bad idea, try to be original too.)
well first we have to define "bad"... lets say "bad" means counter productive to the human species- that is a pretty broad term
By this definition most recent technology is "bad"... your iphone, your playstation, your TV with it's netflix, supercars that go 200 miles per hour, your computer you hunch over 12 hours a day...

>>6472092
>>6472136
better yet what technology is good? life saving medical technology? why/how does that help the human species as whole?

>>6472092
Oh you go after the fucking easy questions just like someone who lacks basic understanding and critical thinking. Challenge yourself, bitch. Philosophy is about examining hard questions, not telling people nukes are the easy answer to your question.

Science can't solve social problems, can't solve political problems, and even statistics can be subverted by ideology.

Philosophy drives science-- the less advanced you are philosophically, the easier you are to manipulate and abuse. The more you understand philosophy (and understanding in general) the more able you are to spread your understanding to other people.

Science just can't solve social problems. Like scientology. Or like coming to terms with your own mortality. It can't give you empathy or understanding on a social level.

Bottom line, science can be misused and abused by your ideology, so it really seems like science gets trumped by philosophy.

I tell him that he's out of his element and to fuck off

>>6472092

>everyone does that, not just professional philosophers.

Not every form of it is within the major of "philosophy" and outside of that, not everyone is educated on even what discourse means.

>and philosophers create new ills of society through bad ideas/philosophy

So everyone has the capacity for fucking up. That sure is new, and not something we've dealt with since the dawn of time, and something science isn't also capable of doing through obliviousness.

>like what? try to be more specific. (and yes, we all know the atomic bomb is a bad idea, try to be original too.)

Weapons Development. To name one.

Encouraging us that we can be objective viewers, is another.

>the whole point of science is to solve problems. whether you find these problems interesting is another question though.

No it isn't.

>oh ffs...

Pure ideology.

>yeah, case closed, kojak. everyone go home.

Well I mean, if you want to discuss how science doesn't exist in a vacuum, I'd love to converse about the subject. But you'd probably get angry.

>>6472146
>>6472092

>new ills
Yeah bad philosophy drives bad science, for one. Racial superiority drove eugenics. Theories of total warfare led to large-scale bombing of civilians in WW2.

Philosophy isn't better than science, but it is useful and incredibly important, and misuse of Philosophy causes huge problems.

>>6471803

Philosophy helps us to understand, and to utilize, the correct application of knowledge.

Religion is like a drug. Philosophy is like designer drugs.

Science cannot answer "how should we live?" Philosophy answers that question marvelously.

>>6472092
you realize "professional philospher" basically means analytic shill right? at least in america. i dont really give a shit about a "professional philosopher".

you asked what philosophy is useful for, diagnosing the ills of society. it's not meant to provide solutions, so anyone using philosophy as the basis for their course of actions (napoleon, hitler) is doing so on their own terms.

i know there is bad philosophy, modern day "science" is just one bad branch of it.

heidegger and paul virilio can answer the technology problem better than i can.

if you cant see how "science" and capitalism aren't easily wed, you're an idiot.

philosophy could very well be part of the problem, but i think many philosophical concepts are very simple. i see science and technology as the main contributors to the informational overload that keeps us from seeing the big picture and cause us to "believe" more than ever and so on.

being anti-science is too easy though, i prefer something like nietzsche that asks us to maintain both, tension always leads to something more interesting.

What is a person?

What does it mean to be?

How do we know or come to know?

What is beauty?

How do we organize society?

How much liberty should people have?

How much authority should the state have?

Does God, or gods exist and if not, what would be the consequences of that?

Science can help but I don't think any of these questions have been definitively answered. The scientific method is a method of coming to better understand something, and we can use that knowledge in diverse ways. But people are kidding themselves if they think philosophy is dead.

Epistemology, logic, ontology, aesthetics, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, etc. are all fields still alive and kicking.

>>6472165

If anything, that itself shows Science is not outside of bias. Which proves the point being made.

I'm not claiming philosophy is "better" than science. At least, I'm not. I don't think it should be a competition of who can be right the quickest.

I'm claiming science doesn't exist in a vacuum and you seem to agree with me.

>>6472127
muh 300k starting salary

>>6472038
underrated post

No legitimate philosopher doesn't recognize the value of science, and no legitimate scientist doesn't recognize the value of philosophy. Hell, the philosophy of science is generally a required course for any natural science degree.

These threads are always 100% freshman jackasses, NEETS, and fucking high schoolers parroting positions they don't understand, attacking strawmen that only *actually* exist in their uneducated, edgy, insular circle of like minded feebs.

>>6472204
I do agree with you.
The only bad thing philosophy tells me right now is to engage with people like OP, because their ideology is fucked up, when engaging with them just causes them to validate their fucked up shit with their righteous defensiveness.

>>6472196
Professional philosopher is anyone who is a professional philosophy teacher IMO. I've met some real nice people who weren't all analytic shills here in America. Historians of Ancient Greek thought, vegetarian yogi Buddhists, old Hegelians.

The real cancer lies here >>6472092 ladies and gentleman.

The amount of shallow-pates in this thread

Philosophy is the clarification of problematic concepts that arise in our language, and thus helps us in developing as Human beings.

Science is an ideology highly influenced and guided by the capitalist market, is ultimately instrumental and thus cannot tell one how one should live one's life or what to value.

That's all there is to it

>>6471803

Course mapping hypothetical futures. For example, how do we logically restrict A.I. systems? Can't do it without understanding the motivations for intelligence and epistemeology.

There is two possible ideologies. Either philosophy is handmaiden of the sciences (analytic thought) or queen of the sciences (continental thought).

>>6471830
Underrated post

I love how a bunch of nerds can go on the Internet and their computers, products of scientific innovation, and complain about how crappy science is because it 'doesn't have all the answers yet'.

>>6472339

Nobody is denying science has use, but you are denying science exists without consequence.

>>6472217
what you lack in reading comprehension, you make-up for in ad hominem rhetoric

>>6472146

>Not every form of it is within the major of "philosophy" and outside of that, not everyone is educated on even what discourse means.

you sound afraid to speak in your own voice.

>Weapons Development. To name one.

the atomic bomb falls under that category. but besides, weapons aren't inherently good or bad.

>No it isn't.

''why do things fall?''

>Well I mean, if you want to discuss how science doesn't exist in a vacuum, I'd love to converse about the subject. But you'd probably get angry.

well of course science doesn't exist in a vacuum, nothing does.

>>6472518

>well of course science doesn't exist in a vacuum, nothing does.

Then we're both in agreement and you're disagreeing with exploring the topic itself.

>>6471803
I would just tell them to play Portal.

Science needs to evolve to include philosophy. There're blind spots in science, things we can't know. How does that particle go through both slits? You'll need some philosophical underpinnings to explain something like that.

So, the two should become one. Or, science should expand to include the other.

>>6471803
U cant know nothing.

>>6472554

Is that any more unreasonable than "You can learn everything"?

>>6472356
Well obviously, as does everything. If anyone in this thread is arguing that science can do no wrong or that philosophy can do no wrong, they're dipshits. The idea that science is somehow evil or destroying society though is insane. Science is neutral, it's not even a school of thought, it's a methodology to be applied to whatever we feel like. Science is a means to an ends, philosophy is a means to define those ends and whether or not we should be seeking them.

>>6472561
Science doesn't "know", nor claim to know, anything. Only to represent our best understanding of natural phenomena. How is this lost on so many people? It's literally the first shit they teach you when pursuing the sciences.

>>6472063
marxism is a science of history

>>6472203
>What is a person?

A human being.

>What does it mean to be?

wat

>How do we know or come to know?

Neuroscience.

>What is beauty?

The opposite of your mom.

>Does God or gods exist

No, obviously.

I think it depends whether someone in this statement is referring to philosophy as a whole or the more confined sense of philosophy in academia.

The fact is, concerning academia, most of the important questions that were once addressed in the explicit study of philosophy ARE now answered by more specialized fields (like the natural sciences, anthropology & psychology & neuro, linguistics, poli sci, civil engineering), and as a result of this loss the academic discipline, left with contemplating the dregs that no one else cares for, has become increasingly irrelevant (as far as the rest of society is concerned) with time, or "dead." These days it's almost on par with literary criticism and women's studies.

However, moving away from the academic discipline, a lot of drivers underlying those other fields stem from philosophy and continue to be philosophical in nature; for example the development of the scientific method and how we now reject studies that fail to meet its criteria (which is not a given); or, in the social sciences, there's an overarching assumption that equality for all is good, and that we all should be changing society to encourage that. And conversely, these fields, in answering their own questions, also inform the age old questions of 'philosophy'--like neuroscience & psyc for "what is the mind?"

>>6472570

It depends on what aspect of science and how it leaks into the social. Science alone by itself is not "society destroying", but it has its own set of otherwise barely visible problems it cannot confront within itself. Which is not that catastrophic, but it is for learning.

>>6472579

And it's used for the exact purpose of forever trying to explore, regardless of what is instructed.

>>6472217
underrated post

>tfw no one has still answered OP's question adequately

>>6472063
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf

>>6472599
>And it's used for the exact purpose of forever trying to explore, regardless of what is instructed.
I don't understand, are you treating this as a negative? Isn't that the exact same impetus of Philosophy, but applied to the metaphysical rather than the physical?

>>6472612

The question itself isn't adequate

>>6472588
>marxism
>science

apex keke

>>6472624
just read that really boring Buroway article

>>6472615
>http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf

The 'research program'definition of science isn't correct, so this article fails at the first page. Popper's falsification theory is the real standard by which theories are judged scientific and only a handful of Marxist claims fit that definition. Further, the handful of specific claims that Marxism makes, have been falsified. China and Russia for example show that socialism leads to liberalism, not the other way around, as Marx would claim.

Since people here are saying how philosophy teaches us how to behave, have any of you actually start behaving differently after reading a philosophical work?

I know it's not as simple as that, but just out of curiosity, have any of you fundamentally changed who you are because of a powerful ethical argument?

>>6472665
marxism lead me to explain to my coworkers why they were poor, and what we should consider doing to improve our lives. of course we were all laid off before anything could happen. so yes.

>>6472665

I don't think that it can change a day to another, but I think it can have long lasting effects on your life.

I can really imagine someone reading Schopenhauer and becoming depressed and losing a year of his life because of muh philosophy. Maybe he didn't changed instantly but the idea developed in their mind towards it's reach.

I like to think that philosophies set your mind into some dialectic framework, and from then you start to get to the extremes from your own thinking. Like Stirner who gets to the extreme in nihilism idealism, and Hegel who gets to the other extreme.

Schopenhauer with Nietzsche are other two examples, one to the extreme of negating will, and the other to the extreme of affirming will.

Economists are also too included in this dialectic framework, once you see the world as an economic struggle, you start developing your opinions on this dialectic framework.

Obviously most of the things you do will not change, for example how do you sit on a chair, or the distance between two people speaking, but those things aren't related to the idea itself, they are related to Being. (read Heidegger and anthropology if you want to change this)

>>6471803

Philosophy is a good in itself, it is not a good that is derived from it's "usefulness" towards other things. We should be asking " what good is x for the sake of Philosophy?".

>>6471810
why is it that the first reply of every thread is always right?

>>6472041
Yeah, how can we measure progress without philosophy?

>>6472665
Not specific to any one work, but reading pieces from existentialists made me more aware of how the same thing might have very different values to different people. In turn, I have a lot more tolerance when I disagree with someone, I'm better at picking and choosing my battles, and when I do opt into a conflict, by arguing to their understanding as well as my own, I "win" far more often.

>>6472617

It depends on what exactly you're exploring and how you're doing it.

To be honest most of those who read Philosophy feel an unexplicable urge to read more Philosophy. You can try to rationalize this but by itself it can't be explained.

you can't know nuffin

>>6471823
You're incredibly dull.

>>6471810
/thread

These days, philosophy is mostly an introspective tool. It helps us to truly understand our thought process as it's related to language. It helps us to parse semantics and utilize logic to express ideas in the most concise way possible. Many philosopher-scientists like Paul Churchland pose ideas that are basically in the waiting room to become scientific hypotheses once more quantifiable data is presented. In short:

philosophy=words
science=numbers

Philosophy encompases all forms of ideology.

It is an inescapeable black hole of an umbrella term and resisting it is a futile, and ultimately absurd endeavour.

>>6472127
Because they're mostly autistic and don't have the ability to function socially.

>>6472832
No. Philosophy is mandatory in French high schools and no one gives a shit.

>>6472783
>philosophy made me understand people

You know what else does? Life experience, literature, psychology. Not specific.

>philosophy made me better at arguing

Kek

>>6473019
>philosophy = words

Lol do you even Wittgenstein?

>>6473053
In fact, it being mandatory is probably what makes the french so scornful towards philosophy

>>6472579
Incorrect. Biologists know that your heart beats and that insulin regulates your sugar levels.

Captcha: nclit

>>6473084
>>6473084
In my experience, they aren't anymore scornful than Americans. In fact, they might be less.

>>6473085

That involves mathematical precision. Outside of mathematical argument, especially in Biology, it tends to get messy.

>>6473085
Then this implies that if tomorrow, someone presented evidence suggesting that your heart didn't beat or that insulin didn't regulate sugar levels, science would be broken and wrong. In reality, it would just mean the science changes. Nothing is considered absolute or beyond reproach in science, which is precisely why it's so useful. Hell, the second law of thermodynamics COULD be wrong. It very, very, very likely isn't, but it's recognized that--with sufficient evidence--it could be overturned. Hell, that's the beauty of science.

>>6473053
I meant those who read for pleasure

*unsheathes katana*

>>6472650

>popper

do you even kuhn

>>6471803
I know it's a meme at this point but seriously nigger keep your finger off the trigger

Is the debunking of inherent value philosophy or science?

>>6471803
>no trigger discipline

Get this fedorable outta here!

>>6471803
Who is this sperg scourge?

>conflating philosophy with continental musings
Dumb yid.

>>6473513

Stop posting mspaint comics.

>>6473518
Make me.

>>6473513
stop

>>6472244
underrated recognizance of said post

>>6471830
This is the only post that is truth.

>>6473513
Why do people hate this comic? It shows both the bad sides of philosophy departments, the sjws/niggers/materialists and the scientismos analytics. If only we could have some true Hegelian departments in America.

>>6471803
>that lack of trigger discipline

im fucking triggered

>>6473562
>>6473513

samefag

>>6473522

That's actually not my face. I wouldn't need ahat like that when San Diego has like 78 degree weather in the winter.

>>6471823
>marxism
>science

yeah maybe in beta planet lel have you even take an academic course u cuck.

>>6473575
I'm not an Hegelian posturer, fuck off. I'm not even a yank.

>>6473580
Damage control.

>>6471803

>teleport behind him
>boot him in the small of the back, disarming him and knocking the fedora off of his head
>pick up rifle and use it to spill his brains on the pavement
>nothing personnel... kid

>>6471830
>>6473611

fuck. at least i got dubs.

>>6471803
Philosophy is an umbrella that can refer to finding objective truth, but it deals with subjective truth as well. For some people, most even, the how doesn't double as the why.

I personally learn about philosophy because it helps me better understand where other people are coming from. You're right in that it won't necessarily translate into anything useful, but neither does music, or great food. We do it because we like it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>6473726
>subjective
>truth
Pick one and only one, motherf*cker.

>>6473592

Who is damage control?

>>6473758

Objective observation doesn't exist so objective truth becomes the oxymoron

>>6473763
>Objective observation doesn't exist so objective truth becomes the oxymoron

>>6473785

Are you saying Randian thought doesn't have a striking similarity with
>tipping
when it is essential tip?

Where have you been? Rand worshipping Libertarians are tip classic.

I'm black also so the whole fedora shit doesn't really apply. That's your guy's problem.

>>6473802
>Rand
>libertarian
Stupid Amerinigger

>>6473883

If you're point was to compare black dude in fedora to fat neckbeard in fedora you failed completely.

And you seemed to forget the part where I targeted people who used the term libertarianism on themselves while applying Rand to their philosophy, which happens to overlap the neckbeard nu-atheist demographic rather well as documented.

>>6473890
Most fedoras are beta socialist male-feminists.

>>6473909

I actually see more Left oriented dudes getting pussy on college campuses than rightist dudes. Sure there are cringy people everywhere, but the cringe tends to organize itself within the right end of the spectrum. Anyways, they still deserve happiness and I do feel for them.

Maybe it's different where you live :)

>>6473917
It is very different. Leftists don't have jobs here, they live on government assistance and have arts degrees.

>>6471803
>mrw my intro philosophy professor calls egoism the same as libertarianism

>>6473935

Oh, you live in Australia. That makes sense.

>>6472595

>>6473917

>leftism gets you pussy

More like scraps.
The cryptofascist psycho's out there are banging tenfold what you get. And no, they're not the libertarian bloggers against 'statism'. Actual psychopaths, with sheer Machiavellian bloodthirst and zero recoil that approach any girl out there and as a result have over 200 sexual partners.
"Durr doesnt exist /r9k/", except it does, which goes to show how outside of your reality all of this is.

Typical leftist, eternally thankful to women for the leftovers he got from the sexual market.

>>6473984
4chan is one of the few places you get to see legitimate, unrestrained delusion up close. Neat.

>>6473972
what the fuck is wrong with australia?

>>6473984

>>6473998
>>6474010

Joke's on you, I befriended one of those people. Ideal wing man.
Fascists always win.

Life is about banging the maximum number of women. MUH WIMMINS

>>6474032
>Fascists always win.
Except for every war they ever fought. Now the best they can do is padding their ranks with molestees in prison, since the only thing less preferable to being a fascist is getting fucked in the ass by a large black man. And even that's a close call.

>>6474212

I thought you leftists claimed capitalists are just fascists in different clothing?

>>6474032

>Fascists always win.

College Fascists are literally the biggest dunders on campus and nobody associates with them. Idk where you are, but let me know so I can stay away from the unprotected hick fuck rituals going on.

I was mocking you by the way.

>>6474226

Other way around doofus.

>>6474226
Goddamn, I hope not. That's just stupid. Fascism isn't some loosely defined thing, and it certainly isn't an economic policy.

>>6471803
Aristotle defined philosophy as encompassing five subjects. Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. So unless this person is going to say that the study of methodology, semantics, logic, fundamental axioms, reasoning itself, morality, virtue, good conduct in general, the entire field of political analysis and theory, and all of art is useless, or worse, try and say that any of those fit under 'science' by anything but the most tenuous of definitions, he can just shut the fuck up.

The scientific method, induction, and empiricism only 'works' at all because it sits on a massive logical philosophical underpinning which, if removed, makes the entire method stop making sense. Nevermind that half the terms he uses in his arguments and inductions are socially/linguistically constructed, meaning errors in thinking ABOUND in self-described scientists purely because they don't understand their own terms [Aquinas and Confucius spit at you].

I get so tired of unphilosophical lay scientists/pop scientists making stupid statements like

"Science has disproved God"
>I'm an atheist and this one still gets to me

"Everything is material and therefore worthless/meaningless"

"Science has proven there's no such thing as morals"

And all the other pieces of nihilistic bullshit that has emerged NOT because of materialist natural science [which I myself believe in], but because of stupid motherfuckers not analyzing the logical underpinning of what they're doing. Honestly if these technology-worshipping bozos go on too much longer they'll basically degenerate from men of science into full blown wizards, seeking power not truth in their studies of the universe, and never actually understanding WHY or WHAT something is and works, but only HOW to get something to behave how they want it to.

>>6474261
>being a moral realist

>>6474423

He just means that morals can't be touched from science.

In fact it's a reason why morals are still trying to be found on neuroscience, they just don't get that you can't found those things on stuff that lacks the cultural significance of what we are.

>>6474449
They can't be found because they are social constructs.

>>6474261
>why/how distinction

Only ever heard christfags say something this retarded.

>>6474484
Not what I was saying. I was pointing out that many scientists ignore important questions PURELY because they are difficult. Many modern lay and pop scientists honestly think that "Science" is a body of knowledge [as opposed to a methodology] and use it as a short hand for any truth possible.

They say there is no such thing as non-empirical truths, then go on and on about logic. I am not saying there is a why/how distinction in that respect, I am saying that modern pop science don't understand their own methodology. You would have to resort to philosophy to explain that science is ultimately a methodology for determining truth from phenomena through the practice of induction and the translation of generalization to universal, meaning its dependent logically on empiricism, inductive reasoning, and about a half dozen other concepts all being true and valid to 'work'. Yet whenever you point this out to them, they think you're trying to say "You can't know nuffin". As though pointing out the necessary framework of a methodology counts as an attack upon it.
>>6474449
This. My own theories on morality [I'm a virtue ethicist] are completely independent of my statement that morality cannot be established purely through natural science. No amount of studying particular instances is going to yield an ought. You can use science IN morality [for example by establishing a universal bad-result of a certain practice], but it cannot establish it on its own.

>>6474516
I'm a scientist, and this is bang on. Most scientists would agree with you. The only people who bother arguing otherwise are militant--often unqualified--"science enthusiasts". Believe me, people on the science side of the fence are just as dismissive of these types as people on the philosophy side. At least they aren't making *you* guys look bad.

>>6473935
>By God, what have we done?

I'd be asking the same thing if I got exiled to an arid desert island by the Crown for fucking a sheep.

>>6474032
Right, which is why the Nazis wouldn't dream of leaving Germany in ruins and divvied up between the first and second worlds.

>>6474233
Technically it is, a lot of early fascist thinkers were all about corporatism, which has nothing to do with corporations. Rather, it comes from the Latin "corpus", meaning body. The state is supposed to work as a body, and the people are to work for the benefit of the state, as opposed to socialism, which is the other way around.

But you know, good luck finding a fascist who isn't single-issue as fuck, and a social issue at that. "I'm not too fond of Jews" is not an economic policy. I take national socialists as seriously as I do everyone who voted for Ron Paul because "he was gonna legalize weed, man! 4:20, schmyerk a byerl erryday!"

>>6474202
Catching them all is an important phase towards understanding adult life.

>>6471803
>Of course philosophy is dead. Science has solved every problem in the past couple of centuries that philosophy hadn't even come close to in a couple of millennia

prove this statement by using the scientific method alone.

Oh wait, you can't.

>>6471913
Depends on the utility. Same can be said about biomedical scientists trying to find viagra 2.0. It depends on what it is being deployed for.

>>6471803
>2meme4me

Why ought one solve problems?

Only through philosophical thought and reasoning can one address this problem. Science cannot address ought statements, or why one ought do something.

And besides, the entirety of the scientific method is held up by philosophical scaffolding, What is a scientific truth? Do the unobservables posited by science actually exist? What makes a scientific fact truthful? Does science describe and explain the actual ontology of reality, or is it merely a predictive tool humans use? Can scientific truths tell us anything about what ought one do? Of what is good and what is bad, and what is beautiful? On what to value, or even as far fetched as how a state should be formed and function? Of whether life itself is worth living? These questions are virtually endless, which makes sense considering science used to be seen as just another branch of philosophy.

Only idiots believe in 'scientism'.

>>6472127
Only money worshipping good goyim think STEM is a smart choice because for them Smart = attempting to win the unwinnable rat race and dying miserable knowing all your children care about is fighting over your Will

>everything is only good for it's utility

I guess we should kill every single useless person in this thread then.

>>6473092
Thats because the only time philosophy is mentioned in american school is Aristotle, and my textbook literally implied philosophy means "science before science was a thing" and nothing more. It Referred to philosophy as if it was as much a part of the past as the telegraph. Guarantee that most anti philosophy pro scientific fetishism people are american.

>>6473984
Yeah my best friend is a sexual sadist Nietzsche/Stirner/libertarian type and he's dating a different SJW every month. Seriously, he tells me they all secretly have rape fetishes & it fits his BDSM fetish perfectly. He's always insulting them subtly or outright and they fucking love it.

>>6474261
>Honestly if these technology-worshipping bozos go on too much longer they'll basically degenerate from men of science into full blown wizards, seeking power not truth in their studies of the universe, and never actually understanding WHY or WHAT something is and works, but only HOW to get something to behave how they want it to.
You try to make it sound like a bad thing, but you only make it sound better.

>>6471803

Science is applied Empiricist Epistemology. Therefore everything that science has done, philosophy has done. Hell, the Scientific method itself is absolutely meaningless without philosophy, as the scientific method cannot test itself.

In addition, philosophy deals with other non material things, Science cannot test Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, or Aesthetics. Philosophy can. And if you think Politics isn't important, please slam your head with a lead pipe.

>>6471803
Define useful.

>>6471803
No one thinks that.

>>6471803
Philosophy can give closure and it can get to a few questions that science cannot answer (Last-Thursdayism is a bad example, but it works). It is also pretty fun and it can woo the ladies.

>>6471803

Is it ethical to kill the mentally handicapped? Get on it science.

>>6476933
Yes, as it would aid in human progress.

>>6471810
Why not both?

>>6476941
Why is aiding human progress the most ethical thing? What makes humans the most important?

>>6476955
Keep in mind you need to answer this without science.

>>6476955
Keep on asking useless questions. Science is busy improving the lives of humans ;)

>>6471803
/b/ has taken over /lit/.

Honestly, it's an improvement.

>>6472650
>implying liberalism leads to socialism

Metaphysics as nonsense

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Epistemologyandmetaphysics/MetaphysicsSpeculativeNonsense.pdf

>>6478231

>Ayer claims that the principle is intended as a definition, reflecting upon and clarifying
our understanding of ‘meaningful’ uses of words. Since we do use the term ‘meaningful’
in a variety of ways, it is a definition just of ‘literal meaning’. Ayer accepts that it isn’t
obviously correct, which is why he provides arguments in specific cases – ethics, religion,
a priori knowledge – which support it.

But to this, any philosopher may respond by rejecting both his specific arguments and
the verification principle. The verification principle is only as convincing as the
arguments that are intended to demonstrate the consequences of its application. If we do
not find those convincing, the principle provides no independent support. On its own,
the principle does not show that metaphysics is speculative nonsense.

>But a similar objection applies to this theory: is the view that a claim must be falsifiable
to be meaningful itself empirically falsifiable? If it isn’t, then it condemns itself. But we
can say that it is falsifiable – if we find meaningful claims that are not falsifiable, then
falsification is shown to be false. But then metaphysicians need only argue that
metaphysical claims that cannot be falsified empirically are nevertheless meaningful in
order to reject Flew’s theory. Again, the matter can’t be settled without an independent
debate on the nature of metaphysical claims.

Exactly.

>>6473513
kek

>>6474006
Late to the party but It's full of Australians.

>>6476955
why is your life important?

>>6473513
if only this image were true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBxf_hncrN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcLQHVT8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnAK3K7kzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2dqovKboU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Fn3fT69JI

Science is a method, not a religion or philosophy.

And science has unsolved paradoxes that indicate it's on the completely wrong tack in explaining reality.

Science tells us nothing about the purpose of life,

>>6471830
best post itt

>>6474554

false flag post

>183 replies

fuck off