Philosophy is for cucks

[Anonymous No.11526567]

Why are philosophers such dumb cunts? I tried searhing for most important philosophical questions ever, and what I've found is so dissapointing. I can answer all of these questions with ease. Here are a few examples.
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
This is a wrong question. There is no "why" in the objective world. It's as stupid as "why did the wind blow?", and we know damn well that there is an objective cause, but no meaning. There is no "meaning", because "meaning" is a fake concept.
>Is our universe real?
It doesn't matter. It's there. And, as a matter of fact, it is real. You can't experience something that isn't. Fucking brainlets.
>Do we have free will?
No. We are just complex animals, that's it. True free will would require us having a supernatural element. There is nothing supernatural.
>Does God exist?
Technically we don't know. Trying to argue without evidence is stupid though. There is no evidence to claim that God exists. So, as of now, it's fair to claim that there is no God.
>Is there life after death?
What the fuck is wrong with people? If the language allows you to arrange words into gramatically correct sentences while making no sense, it doesn't mean everything you say is valid. Death is the end of life BY FUCKING DEFINITION. There is no life after life is no more, for fuck's sake.
>Can you really experience anything objectively?
No.
>What is the best moral system?
Depends on your goals.
>What are numbers?
Concepts of quantity. Is it that hard to understand?

You know, I am really, really pissed off that people are that stupid. Do you like philosophy? Do you have philosophical questions you have no answer for? Well, I can answer everything. Come at me, bro.

[Anonymous No.11526577]

Your answers are trivial and unstimulating

[Anonymous No.11526581]

>>11526577
You are free to criticize them. What exactly is trivial? Give me one example, I will explain further. Or gtfo.

[Anonymous No.11526587]

nihilists and especially materialists deserve anal rape

[Anonymous No.11526596]

>>11526567

You must be 18 and over to post on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11526601]

>>11526587
>>11526596
I love how you ignore my arguments and can't say anything of substance, just like the first responder. Again, tell me where I am wrong or gtfo.

[Anonymous No.11526603]

>>11526581
They're impossible to distinguish from the thousands of posts just like it across the internet. Textbook linguistic reductionism, standard appeals to what we are "just" of, the conflation of free will with the supernatural (lol come on buddy), not understanding what we mean by the universe being real or not (hint: it's not a denial of the given), pseudo-Kantianism, etc.

Read a book

[Anonymous No.11526608]

>>11526601
get dabbed on scientismist

[Anonymous No.11526612]

>This is a wrong question.

[Anonymous No.11526616]

>>11526603
>not understanding what we mean by the universe being real or not (hint: it's not a denial of the given)

then what is it?

[Anonymous No.11526625]

>>11526581
Not that guy, but to say there is nothing supernatural and then that the existence of god can't be proven or disproven kinda shows how little thought you put into these answers. If there's nothing supernatural, then there is no god, and there can be no room for maybe. The question of "why is there something" has nothing to do with meaning. Like your wind example, it's more about the search for a cause, which still remains hidden from us.

And about moral systems: one's goals aren't outside of morality. In having whatever goal you've already chosen a moral system, probably unwittingly. The question of whether "the ends justify the means" has been argued over a lot in moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11526627]

>>11526616
Understanding the precise relation between appearance and reality, truth and cognition, why and where and how one can be mistaken about anything, in what sense things can exist in time if everything is subject to perpetual change and flow, how much reality we should attribute to our schematization of nature, whether the site of disclosure is prior to what is disclosed, where representation ends and reality begins, if there is one, etc.

[Anonymous No.11526630]

>>11526567
>/lit/ hated him because he was right

[Anonymous No.11526633]

>>11526567
You need to be 18 to post here.

[Anonymous No.11526635]

>This is your mind on Scientism and r/atheism.

[Anonymous No.11526640]

lol! epic bait! insane troll! based anon so cool!

[Anonymous No.11526644]

>>11526601
just like the OP , you mean

[Anonymous No.11526645]

>>11526603
>Textbook linguistic reductionism
Which is valid in the exact context I presented. Some questions make no sense and can only be asked because the structure of language allows it.
>standard appeals to what we are "just" of
Okay, buddy, you got me. Any criticism of this though? Oh, I see. You think naming what I do is criticizing. lmao
>the conflation of free will with the supernatural (lol come on buddy)
Do you have a brain? Do you know that your brain consists of atoms, for example? Do you know that atoms behave in accordance with the laws of physics? If so, you have no free will, because free will is the ability to choose. You can't choose if your whole being is EXISTING WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Fucking brainlet.
>not understanding what we mean by the universe being real or not
The only good thing you've said so far. Because, technically, whether the universe is real or not is a scientific question, it has no place in philosophy.

So, you are gtfo'd.
>>11526612
If there are no wrong questions, how come I can ask whether my bread was inspired by post-modernism? Brainlet.
>>11526625
>to say there is nothing supernatural and then that the existence of god can't be proven or disproven kinda shows how little thought you put into these answers
It can be proven or disprove. There is no evidence to prove it though, that's why we assume there is no supernatural. The universe doesn't need the supernatural to exist.
>it's more about the search for a cause, which still remains hidden from us.
Lmao. Exactly why I think philosophy scams on these questions. You can only use science to find the cause. Everything else is unfounded speculation.
>And about moral systems: one's goals aren't outside of morality. In having whatever goal you've already chosen a moral system, probably unwittingly. The question of whether "the ends justify the means" has been argued over a lot in moral philosophy.
So? If goals are within morality, it simply points out its continuation. That's all.

[Anonymous No.11526651]

>>11526645
>Do you have a brain? Do you know that your brain consists of atoms, for example? Do you know that atoms behave in accordance with the laws of physics?

you are like a little baby. Please stop embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.11526652]

Dude I fucking LOVE science!!

[Anonymous No.11526660]

>>11526567
No one is in search for meaning, they are trying to solve the problem between the distinction of nature and consciousness, it is not impossible, and it doesn't have a meaning for why is that, it just is
Only existentialists talk about meaning, besides them no one does, the "essence" which many peoppe characterize as meaning is only the necessary properties of a conscious man.

[Anonymous No.11526661]

>>11526645
No, you can just rephrase the question to how there is something instead of nothing and it remains valid.

Reducing everything some noumenal stuff you call Matter or Substance is just what you're accusing philosophers of doing in the opposite direction. You cannot identify what this Matter properly consists of besides just appealing to atomic law, you're only attributing Mind to the activity of an unconscious medium which makes the question all the more pertinent.

Lol the free will argument. Where would choice exist except as being determined within laws? What do you feel this reality is depriving you of by causal if this is the same reality where you're conceptualizing such a thing as "freedom"? How would an "actually" free world look like? lol

[Anonymous No.11526663]

>>11526567

>implying I'd waste my time refutating some underage brainlet on the internet

go read a book, nothing is EVER as simple as it seems, and certainly not as simple as you claimed they'd be with this stupid post

[Anonymous No.11526664]

>>11526567
>Is our universe real?
>It doesn't matter. It's there. And, as a matter of fact, it is real. You can't experience something that isn't.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.11526669]

>>11526645
What if I chance the question to "does consciousness die with the body?"?

[Anonymous No.11526670]

>>11526652
>>11526640
>>11526635
>>11526630
>>11526612
>>11526608
>>11526587
based

[Anonymous No.11526695]

>>11526652

[Anonymous No.11526696]

>>11526633
Oh, I see. A believer? I love how you always resolve to memes because you have nothing of value to say. Atheists btfo'd religious cucks in arguments so hard, lmao.
>>11526635
Aha, nothing of value said. Again. Because you can't criticize my logic. Brainlet.
>>11526644
It was my post. I am the OP.
>>11526651
HAHAHAHAHAHA. So, your response to this fact, that we are bound by laws of physics, is asking me to stop embarrassing myself? FUCKING PATHETIC. I thought /lit/ was the highest IQ board. Sadly, it's full of religious brainlets who believe in concepts there is no proof of. Are you going to argue there is something beyong the laws of nature? You can't.
>>11526652
You know why? Because it's the best method of learning about the real world. Sadly, you still believe in fairy tales.
>>11526660
Solve the problem of nature and consciousness? Consciousness is a part of nature, where is the problem? Can you give me any valid philosophical questions?
>>11526661
>No, you can just rephrase the question to how there is something instead of nothing and it remains valid.
>HOW
How? Laws of nature. Next question?
>You cannot identify what this Matter properly consists of
You can. That's what we are doing right now. We are studying matter. And, as far as science have went, we already know about everything that is traditionally considered "matter". Not exactly everything about how it works, but we are able to identify matter. Do we know everything? No. But that doesn't mean we have to use philosophy to speculate without evidence.
>Where would choice exist except as being determined within laws? What do you feel this reality is depriving you of by causal if this is the same reality where you're conceptualizing such a thing as "freedom"? How would an "actually" free world look like? lol
Why do you ask me? There is no free will, as I've already proven.
>>11526664
X is non-existent. Y is existent. A is within the existent. A can interact with Y, can't with X. Proven. Lol
>>11526669
That thing we call consciousness that exists as long as we are alive? Yes, it dies with our death.

[Anonymous No.11526697]

>>11526567

Why is there is no "why"?

[Anonymous No.11526709]

>>11526697
For the same reason there is no such thing as a dot or a line in real world, they exist only in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11526710]

>>11526696
>It was my post. I am the OP.
that's what i meant brainlet
>can't say anything of substance

[Anonymous No.11526711]

>>11526567
Wow, anon, only 17 years old and you’re a total genius! Centuries of philosophy from the world’s greatest minds and they had it all wrong! Reminds me of when my Uncle Larry changed science forever by asking “If evolution is real, how come we still have monkeys?” You had better go take these revolutionary findings to the top philosophers and watch as they bow down before you, in awe of your godlike ability to solve “the big questions” conclusively, once and for all. And remember, if they laugh at you, it’s because they’re in denial. And if they start saying something you don’t understand, it’s pretentious ivory tower gobbledygook!

[Anonymous No.11526715]

>>11526696
>he is still on 'atheism vs religion', a meme irrelevant since before 2010

[Anonymous No.11526718]

>>11526567
OP, how much math do you know? Just curious.

[Anonymous No.11526729]

>>11526696
You’re too obvious now, could have been a good troll but ya blew it

[Anonymous No.11526738]

>>11526696
There is no model of the "laws of physics" that accurately describes all phenomena in the universe. Believing in one is just believing in God under a different name.

[Anonymous No.11526746]

>>11526711
I love how you don't address a singe point I've made. Brainlet. By the way, your Uncle Larry exampe describes why philosopher ask wrong question all the time pretty accurately.
>>11526715
Well, until there are brainlet believers, it's worth arguing against their nonsensical points.
>>11526718
Advanced high school course. Why?
>>11526738
Have you just equated believing in something with no evidence with basing your world view on evidence based scientific date?

[Anonymous No.11526755]

>>11526696
totally causally determined machines wouldn't have a concept of freedom, you can't think necessity slowly bejng saturated by consciousness as the singularity of the self-given will you fucking troglodyte

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11526761]

>Do we have free will.
>No
Not so fast, psued.

There's equally compelling evidence that the universe contains within it true quantum randomness as there is for the opposite to be true.

If the fundamental laws of the universe are subject to random fluctuations, or yet, unknowable deviations in behavior which are neither caused nor causally related to any other phenomena, then we as constructs of that universe are also subject to, as consciousnesses, those laws.

[Anonymous No.11526763]

Philosophy BTFO. Will It ever recover?

[Anonymous No.11526767]

>>11526696
This is legitimately the funniest troll thread I've seen in a long time

[Anonymous No.11526771]

>>11526761
And if truly random fluctuations exist, then it proves that we are random. Free will is deliberate. So, not so much free will if it's only a roll of dice.

[Anonymous No.11526776]

>>11526715
I don't know why (you) just drop like that, although it called a meme, atheism vs religion meme was far more complicated and, unironically, philosophical than this guy science-dropping saying

[Anonymous No.11526783]

>>11526567
>Philosophy is for cucks
>Proceeds to philosophize in the most brain dead, pop culture overdosed way possible.
Never gets old

[Anonymous No.11526791]

>>11526761
nothing discovered of activity in the brain explicitly connected to quantums, so far every connection of brain can explained by "basic" mechanics by current research of brain science.

[Anonymous No.11526797]

>>11526746
>Advanced high school course. Why?
Figured.

[Anonymous No.11526799]

>>11526791
No one cares you goober, a brain will never be the first-person centrality of consciousness, this is the ground on which all mysticism rests, you're reifying abstraction to think with a ceiling, consciousness is a difference in kind and not explanatory degree, stop peddling reddit jew materialism

[Anonymous No.11526800]

>>11526567
>I can answer all of these questions with ease
>This is a wrong question
>It doesn't matter
>We don't know
>What the fuck is wrong with people
>depends

[Anonymous No.11526802]

>>11526567
Shit. You're right.
Not definitively, but you have shown that there are quite simple answers to questions often regarded as complex. Answers we could perhaps...
build upon?

[Anonymous No.11526805]

>>11526746
he is saying there is no complete model and that is true, you are very good at not responding to the real point

[Anonymous No.11526815]

>>11526746
>OP admits he’s a high schooler

[Anonymous No.11526820]

>>11526797
Okay. Your point being? Are you going to give me an argument against my definition of numbers or something?
>>11526799
>stop peddling reddit jew materialism
Funny thing is, you can't prove anything beyond the material world. Lol. So, you lose that argument. And I can't even tell you to go back to /pol/, because you're an embarrassment of a white man.
>>11526800
>oy vey, let me speculate without evidence even if the question is not valid, it's so smart!
>>11526802
That's what the science is doing. Yes, we are building upon these answers all the time.
>>11526805
Whether a model is complete or not while it's proven to be applicable, practical, and by all scientific means working, is not an issue. At all. If we don't know everything through science, it's not a reason to call the supernatural to fill the gaps. You know, this kind of thinking was easily ridiculed thousands of times. You know. God of gaps, cough-cough.
>>11526815
No, I only admitted I stopped learning math after HS. I went into the uni to study law.

[Anonymous No.11526825]

>>11526820
>lawyer is a spiritual eunuch

Made me think

[Anonymous No.11526827]

>>11526567
"Realist" redditor tier garbage. We've all been 14 once and believed the answer to everything could be rationalized by saying "humans are just dumb animals" or "there's no point in even asking if you cant find a concrete answer" but you'll grow out of it. This is the most pseud thing I've ever seen a thread for.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11526829]

>>11526820
Consciousness isn't explicitly material. This is the big problem with the nature of experiential reality.

[Anonymous No.11526843]

>>11526820
Actually respond to arguments like "consciousness is a difference of kind and not degree and so irreducible to physical description" and "internally free subjects could not have a concept of causality" instead of just cherrypicking the memes ya fucking poofer

[Anonymous No.11526847]

>>11526820
>No, I only admitted I stopped learning math after HS. I went into the uni to study law.
>T. "Going to be a lawyer because I'm really good at arguing"

[Anonymous No.11526852]

>>11526567
Do you believe that truth can only be known by empirical evidence? Because if so, note that this belief itself cannot be proven empirically, and your one axiom contradicts itself.

[Anonymous No.11526859]

>>11526820
>Okay. Your point being? Are you going to give me an argument against my definition of numbers or something?
No, you're not going to be able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.11526865]

>>11526827
you grow into religion and meme question that keep you satisfied and comfortable? it was about getting friends along the way? fucking dolts, grow up.

[Anonymous No.11526869]

>>11526567
OP, troll or not, you need to know that this board has been raided by poltards and other scum. Now we have bunch of religious knuckle-draggers and kike-on-the-stick worshiping subhumans.

[Anonymous No.11526871]

>>11526865
Read metaphysics not fundie trash

[Anonymous No.11526882]

>>11526825
I'm someone who is paid for arguing. I am good at it. You're not.
>>11526827
You are so original to repeat what all the other brainlets ITT said. If you have nothing of value to add, and you can't criticize my points, gtfo
>>11526829
>Consciousness isn't explicitly material
How so?
>>11526843
>consciousness is a difference of kind and not degree and so irreducible to physical description
This is not an argument. This basically says that consciousness is different from the usual material stuff without saying HOW. So, either elaborate, or it's not worth answering to, as there is nothing of substance said.
>internally free subjects could not have a concept of causality
This is actually my point. You can't escape causality, therefore you are not free. Lol
>>11526852
If I would believe that, I would not believe in the concept of laws of nature, since I would be bound to prove them each time making even the simplest of claims.
>>11526859
>No, you're not going to be able to understand it.
>TRUST ME, YOU ARE WRONG, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY
lmao, gtfo
>>11526869
It saddens me a lot. I hate how there are so many people who can't imagine a purely secular reason to advocate for Europeans. That's one of the reasons Jews are winning.