What’s the point of philosophy when there’s science?

[Anonymous No.14589506]

And I’m not talking about metaphysics or epistemology, but rather the sort of philosophical crap that says “humans are by nature this way” or “suffering makes us better/worse”.

Why make these sorts of statements with no evidence? Why not just put them to the test, scientifically? I immediately zone out when I hear someone or read someone saying these sorts of things. It’s just dogma at that point.

[Anonymous No.14589522]

>>14589506
>humans are by nature this way
not philosophy
>suffering makes us better/worse
not philosophy
>statements with no evidence
not philosophy
>Why not just put them to the test, scientifically?
science is a philosophy.

now shoo back to where you came from

[Anonymous No.14589526]

>>14589522
So most of Nietzsche’s writing isn’t philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14589530]

>>14589526
He was an art writer

[Anonymous No.14589568]

>>14589506
Science doesn’t prepare you for your inevitable death.

[Anonymous No.14589632]

http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/theology-less-speculative-than-quantum-gravity/

I, too, hate it when people send more reading material to add to the heap. This guy's pretty neat though. Son of the creator of Perl, New Horizons in Physics winner.

[Anonymous No.14589642]

>>14589506
Google Francis Bacon

[Anonymous No.14589649]

There's a branch of science that tries to figure out the nature of people, and it isn't exactly a resounding success. Though my main recommendation to you is to read Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[Anonymous No.14589658]

Read Whitehead. It's amazing how everyday I am reminded that everyone would be less retarded if they just read Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.14589677]

>>14589506
When you are High Verbal and Low Math you have very little opportunity to acquire resources to attract mates in modern Life. So you need to come up with strange social games where the man with the ability to spin the best abstract conceptual structures "wins" and is allowed into "the academy" which is a sort of cabal/pyramid scheme where unattractive High Verbal men have access to undergrad pussy. It serves a function in society, but the majority of journeyman philosophers go insane from the drugs and constant mental abuse from the other desperate High Verbals.

[Anonymous No.14589696]

>>14589677
>High Verbal and Low Math
every respectable philosopher excels at math

[Anonymous No.14589722]

>>14589696
>every respectable philosopher
so it's a short list then

[Anonymous No.14589743]

>>14589522
Amazing. Best case you're asserting a new definition of philosophy that isn't in sync with common usage in this community. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.14589807]

>>14589506
>muh verificationism.
Imagine being this retarded. Has to be bait.

[Anonymous No.14589819]

>>14589807
based aesthetic opinion haver

[Anonymous No.14589848]

>>14589506
Well besides>>14589522 which may be right it a specific sense, I would be inclined to agree with you, if humans were animals who only conserned themselves with what “is”.

However, most people want an “aught”.
And with “aughts” comes some justification. And 99.999 percent of people have aughts. Why do you do anything. Science is a process, it is not something that creates goals or meaning. Even if the meaning is simple pleasures, that is a philosophical position.

Science is a means, a tool, and philosophy is the paradigm in which we use that tool.

[Anonymous No.14590787]

>>14589522
My heart fucking jumped. I did not expect to find Agatha here.

[Anonymous No.14590795]

>>14589506
The point of philosophy is to augment the results of science to where the render more accurate what choices are better than others.

Science says: "This is"
Philosophy says: "This is what we should do with it."

Entropy can lend credence to certain philosophies for example.

[Anonymous No.14590799]

>>14589522
kiss yourlelf, fattog

[Anonymous No.14590820]

>>14589506
Because there will always be things that science cannot explain, that's why religion and philosophy exists. If you keep just asking why, then use science to find out you could ask again why and the cycle begins again.

[Anonymous No.14590835]

>>14589506
It's living history from a time when philosophers were simply thinkers. mendeleev's dream provides a nice history detailing how someone who figured out rudimentary chemistry, physics, or medicine was able to shoehorn their philosophy in because their science had social utility.

Evolutionary psychology completely encompasses philosophy, and neurophysics will bury the qualia.

This board is ripe for a sokal affair.

[Anonymous No.14590860]

>>14589677
As an immensely unaccomplished man of high verbal intelligence and retard-tier visual skills (sort of okay at math, tho), I can confirm most of this to be accurate.

The few males who only excel in the humanities desperately one-up each another in pursuit of female attention, but are inevitably passed over for a STEM/premed chad anyway.

[Anonymous No.14590871]

>>14590860
holy shit I didn't know it was so bad. If you said that to me in person I'd let you swing a hammer on my crew any day of the week.

[Anonymous No.14590875]

>>14589506
What do you think of the axioms that are needed within science, how do they arise? How are they supported "by itself" if it is an axiom? Merely because it has pragmatic success?

[Anonymous No.14590918]

>>14589506
>>humans are by nature this way
Can be philosophy.

>>suffering makes us better/worse
Can be philosophy.

>>statements with no evidence
Not philosophy.

But if you think every individual claim needs to be 100% you're a retard. Just like Plato's views on artists may be wrong but are still representative of a general spirit. Same thing goes with speculations, though they have the possibility of being self evident.

>>Why not just put them to the test, scientifically?
Because they're aiming at different things. The "is" is always tied to the ought in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14590939]

>>14590835
What on earth does 'bury the qualia' mean?

[Anonymous No.14590959]

Science is work. Philosophy is scholia, otium, meaning idleness in the good ancient Greco-Roman and patrician sense.

NEETs are the modern-day descendants of patricians, who appreciate the fact that contemplation in idleness is the highest human pleasure.

In contrast, normies, the modern bourgeois and proletarian classes, are the descendants of the slaves of the ancient world. Even in their freetime they are restless, busying themselves with entertainment and other empty pursuits, because the notion of idleness in alien to their very souls. These are the ones who ask what philosophy is *for*, not understanding that it is an end in itself. It's useless to explain to them because it's not in their constitution to understand it.

[Anonymous No.14590962]

>>14590939
A perfect understating of the neural activity of how something feels is sufficient to recreate the feeling by applying that understanding. Finding a bridge between the details of sensation and sensation itself isn't needed. The details ARE the sensation.

[Anonymous No.14590983]

>>14590959
Unequivocally based.

[Anonymous No.14591024]

>>14589743
>>14590799
Justify yourself

[Anonymous No.14591027]

>>14589526
NIetzsche is a mystic

[Anonymous No.14591238]

>>14589677

As someone who is high verbal and extremely low math, this is so true that it actually made me laugh.

[Anonymous No.14591245]

>>14590860

>STEM chad
>Implying STEMfags can even hold a conversation with a woman for longer than 5 minutes.

Hilarious

[Anomynous No.14591271]

>>14589677
When will being high math help me get pussy?
Do I have to become a professor or something?

[Anonymous No.14591280]

>>14591271
You have to become rich. Nerds who don't know how to use their iq to earn money are as helpless as anyone.

[Anonymous No.14591283]

>>14590787
>being on a first-name basis with some putrid-looking greasy, ugly child
Neck yourself

[Anonymous No.14591320]

>>14591027
proofs?

[Anonymous No.14591339]

>>14590959
literally the only good post itt

[Anomynous No.14591534]

>>14591280
I don't know about rich, but making a decent living won't be much of a problem.
However I don't know how I would use money to get pussy, aside from that obvious thing.

[Anonymous No.14591541]

Philosophy just pales in comparison to mathematics. I can't even begin to understand why you would want to study philosophy over mathematics, all the mysteries of the world are open to you should you choose to study mathematics properly. It's the language of the gods.

[Anonymous No.14591562]

>>14591541
Look, I love math but math-worshiping autists like you shit on the actual value by turning it into a religion.

[Anonymous No.14591577]

>>14591541
Believing that math can answer all questions is a philosophical position

[Anonymous No.14591599]

>>14591562
fuck you bean-eating heathen

[Anonymous No.14591639]

>>14589506
>Why make these sorts of statements with no evidence? Why not just put them to the test, scientifically?
How exactly would you design a scientific experiment to answer the question of “suffering makes us better/worse”?

[Anonymous No.14591662]

>>14589506
Science don't got pataphysics

[Anonymous No.14591676]

>>14591534
>I don't know how I would use money to get pussy
And that's why you're a virgin.

[Anonymous No.14591687]

>>14589526
Nietzsche is a meme

[Anomynous No.14591693]

>>14591676
Yes?
You say that as if it isn't obvious.

[Anonymous No.14591694]

>>14591534
>However I don't know how I would use money to get pussy, aside from that obvious thing.
Around age 30 any guy with a career/car/house starts looking fantastic. There are women smart enough to start looking early and ignore flashy displays by charming-but-doomed high Verbals. The problem is you need to go find those girls and be at least good looking enough to not scare them away while actively displaying your future potential. Think future suburban moms, not art girls, traveling girls, trashy girls, or urban chic 1 baby types

[Anonymous No.14591696]

>>14591639
See, you start with an animal trial, probably with rats. One group of rats you treat normally. Another group, you pamper. And then the last group, you starve and torture. After the rats have grown you put them through cognitive and physical tests. Bada boom, problem solved. If you can get the funding, you might even be able to run the test again with larger animals or even people

[Anonymous No.14591700]

95% of the time, people who say philosophy is worthless or outdated know very little about philosophy. Always entry-level shit at most.

[Anonymous No.14591732]

>>14591696
>torture rat
>test its brain
>see that its suffering and probably stupid from stress
>pamper rat
>test brain
>see that its happy
Ok. so all we've found out is blatantly obvious stuff. Great experiment. Now to get into the philosophy of it, how do we know if any of that was valuable? We haven't even defined value yet, or examined why we have that definition.

[Anonymous No.14591742]

>>14591732
I was just shitposting, scientism is stupid. I don't feel like carrying this bit any further

[Anonymous No.14591757]

>>14591732
Yeah this
Extended periods of stress and depression cause measurable brain damage in humans. I suspect the best performing groups are faces with brief stress where they can actively address and mediate the stressor themselves, while returning to pampered living afterwards. That's true normie development

[Anonymous No.14591758]

>>14591696
And one of the suffering rats goes on to write the next great american rat novel

[Anonymous No.14591768]

>>14591758
The important question is whether it was one of the pampered or tortured rats

[Anonymous No.14591769]

>>14591283
You sound way too assblasted about Agatha for you not be some stray C*arafag.

[Anonymous No.14591785]

>>14591700
name one (1) useful piece of high-level philosophy, O wise one

[Anonymous No.14591796]

>>14591693
Alright. Sorry.
The way you use money to get pussy is simply this
>buy expensive stuff
>get out of your home!
>display expensive stuff to a female audience
By displaying the stuff you appear more fit for reproduction than other males (see costly signalling). You need to realize that we are biological beings, biology overrides every social determination.
But so far you have caught their attention. This is not enough. You still need social skills, confidence and experience to complete the kill. But this is another topic.

[Anonymous No.14591813]

>>14591785
>use

[Anomynous No.14591818]

>>14591694
>>14591796
So basically I'll need to get a house and stuff first.

[Anonymous No.14591825]

>>14590959
Rarely do I get to read anymore something this based.

[Anonymous No.14591837]

>>14591768
Depends on what's fashionable among publishers

[Anonymous No.14591842]

>>14591813
>philosophy is in fact worthless
figures

[Anonymous No.14592051]

>>14591818
>house
Notice I didn’t specify the goods that you need to acquire. I made it as general as possible. House maybe if you want that suburban mom like >>14591694 said. You didn’t specify the kind of whore that you wanted too. If your whore is say into bikes, then get that, etc. I think you’re smart enough to figure out.

[Anonymous No.14592181]

>>14591842
>worth

[Anonymous No.14592477]

>>14589677

are we pretending like charisma and drugs aren't resources now?

[Anonymous No.14592491]

>>14592477

addendum

[Anonymous No.14592552]

>>14592491
Would rather fuck the one on the left desu. Not even a contest. She looks fun and nasty.

[Anonymous No.14592585]

>>14591700
the civil engineer that feeds you doesn't care what you think. he simply marches on paving the way for people smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.14592627]

>>14589649
>isn't exactly a resounding success

How fucking scientifically illiterate do you have to be to actually believe this? The sciences of the mind have given us insights in the last 50 years alone that are more mind-boggling than the entire history of philosophy

Moral psychology shows us our avariciousness, acquisitiveness and massive capacity for self-deception, evolutionary psychology lays bare differences in sexual psychology between the sexes, neuroscience shows us the limits (and amazing capabilities) of our mental hardware, psychometrics explains so many of the insane outcome disparities in the world, fuck, if the findings from twin studies alone doesn't make you go offline for a week to chew on the ramifications I don't know what to tell you

It's not even like the great minds in these fields are philosophically illiterate; many take a great interest and will be happy to tell you where current findings do and don't line up with the great thinkers

Just... how? How do you convince yourself that philosophy poses some kind of threat to all this and not the other way around?

[Anonymous No.14592634]

>>14589649
Based Kuhn poster. I think it’s just me and you

[Anonymous No.14592635]

>>14590959
um hello based department?

[Anonymous No.14592639]

>>14589677
>Pussy
Dumb projecting sex addicted fag. Majority of men pursuing that path want recognition that they are important, people will talk about them and see them as higher beings. It's an extreme inferiority complex and unacceptance that the idea of the lone genius philosopher is a historical artifact. It has nothing to do with "undergrad pussy". Woman, especially young ones, are incredibly easy to manipulate. You don't need an academic pyramid scheme to fuck them if you have high verbal iq. And stemfags are hilariously bad with woman. Come to a city like San Jose and see how well they do

[Anonymous No.14592644]

>>14592627
Lmao
>with our complicated, expensive equipment and bloated institutions we’ve come to conclusions that philosophers and theologians across time and space came to intuitively, except now we have peer review!

[Anonymous No.14592664]

>>14592585
>Civil engineers
Are retarded organic tools that can barely be classified as a human. Figures that they are going to be quickly replaced by AI because nothing they do touches upon the uniqueness of the human condition
t. Architect

[Anonymous No.14592667]

>>14592634
watching kuhn fail to say what heidegger failed to say hurts. How the fuck did such archaic and useless "thinkers" survive amidst physicists and mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.14592668]

>>14592627
So science has told us things we've always already known? ok

[Anonymous No.14592673]

>>14592627
>psychology
>science

[Anonymous No.14592686]

>>14592667
What did he fail to say? Kuhn was a theoretical physicist before he started writing philosophy

[Anonymous No.14592687]

>>14592644
Basically this, I ain't even mad

We have a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff now; charitably speaking maybe 10% of philosophers and theologians had intuition that good and they're mentioned favorably and accorded all respect due by researchers

To believe anything else is 100% butthurt gatekeeping

[Anonymous No.14592689]

>>14592627
>How do you convince yourself that philosophy poses some kind of threat to all this and not the other way around?
The idea that either threatens the other is absurd, because they serve different purposes. Without philosophy, none of these questions would even get asked. Also evo-psych is speculative pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.14592694]

>>14589506
>science
The "science" you're talking about is rationalist empiricism. Or empiricist rationalism, if you prefer. The answer to your question is that other people value different things.

[Anonymous No.14592700]

>>14592585
Why do I give a shit about what a civil engineer thinks? How is that related to what I said? The fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.14592800]

>>14592668
>don't look there anon! better to glean these insights like diamonds hidden among reams of unfalsifiable astrology-tier shitposting!

[Anonymous No.14593281]

>>14592800
If psychology was good women wouldn't like it

[Anonymous No.14593449]

>>14593281
Oh they stop liking it and become skeptics real fast when they get to the part about sex differences

[Anonymous No.14593666]

>>14592687
>We have a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff now;
That's a joke.
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/01/replicability
Psychology is not empirically rigorous. It's rotten from the foundations. It's bad philosophy that tries to masquerade as science.

[Anonymous No.14593720]

>>14591785
Explanation and understanding, von Wrigt

[Anonymous No.14594127]

>>14593666
>implying I didn't know about the replication crisis
>implying that the discoveries I mentioned upthread aren't some of the most widely replicated in the field

This is like the third time on /lit/ someone pulled this out like it's some kind of big dunk, what else ya got?

The crazy thing in all this is I never claimed that there's no place for philosophy or that science can answer all the big questions, only that science has answered more of them, more decisively in half a century than philosophy has in millenia

Your argument would be like someone pointing out that some findings of early phrenologists have been vindicated by modern imaging and psychometry, therefore phrenology is some kind of critical prerequisite for studying either

That those guys got it even partially right, in an era where we didn't even have fucking germ theory yet, is a testament to their academic rigor, sure. But since when is the pursuit of knowledge about deferral to the first person to get it half right?

[Anonymous No.14594219]

>>14594127
You are doing philosophy right now.

That's the point.

[Anonymous No.14594226]

>>14589506
>why do I need "love of Wisdom" if I can just use BAZINGO!!1

[Anonymous No.14594241]

>>14589506
The “scientific worldview”, like your own, is itself a philosophical standpoint. Philosophy works in the realm of values. It’s about what it means to be human. It’s the ultimate human activity. Even if you assume “science” is “better” because it “helps us live easier, healthier, more pleasant, longer lives,” what do we do after, say, all our work is automated and we have unlimited leisure and are immortal? We sit down and think. Because contemplation of the big questions offers a unique type of joy different from (although not necessarily in opposition to) physical pleasures and even the pleasures of scientific discovery or artistic creation.

[Anonymous No.14594257]

>>14592627
Psychology has nothing to do with philosophy. Why are you even comparing them?

[Anonymous No.14594285]

>>14594257
1/10 bait

Anon I quoted claimed that the scientific attempt to understand human nature has been mostly unsuccessful and implied by omission that philosophy had done a better job, try to keep up smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.14594304]

>>14594285
Bullshit. He pointed out that psychology has not been a resounding success, which is true. He did not suggest that philosophy has anything to do with psychology.

[Anonymous No.14594316]

>>14589677
A good observation, but it is a reflection of the moral degradation of our present society
Before the enlightenment it was literally the other way around

[Anonymous No.14594334]

>>14589677
Philosophers have High Math IQ, dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.14594352]

>>14589526
Not in the sense that you could take a book of Nietzsche and separate "philosophical" passages from the others with different-color highlighters.

[Anonymous No.14594365]

>>14591541
>all the mysteries of the world are open to you should you choose to study mathematics properly
Does that include how to get a girlfriend

[Anonymous No.14594371]

>>14591694
>Think future suburban moms

>not art girls
>not traveling girls
>not trashy girls
>not urban chic 1 baby types

Nigger where do you think all the suburban moms come from?

[Anonymous No.14594374]

>>14594352
Nietzsche was more of a literary artist and social commentator. He wasn't a philosopher in the strict sense.

[Anonymous No.14594379]

>>14594304
He never used the word "psychology" once you massive faggot. He condemned the scientific endeavor to understand human nature in its entirety which is way more damning and over the top to the point of caricature so I rightly gave him shit for it

[Anonymous No.14594380]

>>14592552
that is the point of the picture

[Anonymous No.14594382]

>>14589506
science is philosophy

[Anonymous No.14594383]

>>14590959
Holy kek

[Anonymous No.14594387]

>>14594127
You're missing the point. This is the point:
>Psychology is not empirically rigorous
This is supported in part by the replication crisis (something which is effecting all of science right now for various reasons), and how it reflects psychology's failure compared to the rigidity of something like chemistry (which has a comparatively excellent replication rate).
>Your argument would be like someone pointing out that some findings of early phrenologists have been vindicated by modern imaging and psychometry, therefore phrenology is some kind of critical prerequisite for studying either
The only post I made was this>>14593666
and that's not near my argument at all. I believe that when people say psychology is simply the modern way of dealing with what were once philosophical problems because of "what we now now about science," they're wrong. The main reason being 1. psychology doesn't intersect with what the old philosophers were saying like it's proposed it does, as it relates to the human condition, 2. psychologists approach to ethics and lifestyle, as you see in their papers and some of their popular press, isn't actually related to the research they do, and they themselves often fail to do anything but make their patients talkative about their problems, and 3. psychology isn't empirically rigorous, not because it's the "young science," but because it is based around flawed theories and methods.
This is anecdotal, but of the people I've known who've been in therapy, not one has meaningfully solved their problems through that. The only difference I see is that they become what most would assume is "whiny." They become more talkative about the emotions they feel. But I don't take this as them being whiny, I see it as a behavior they've adapted. Yet never once have I seen someone "finish" therapy and deal with their problems directly.

[Anonymous No.14594390]

>>14590787
RIP she is gone but not forgotten

[Anonymous No.14594392]

>>14590959
based

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.14594409]

>>14592585
exactly, the STEM insect doesn't think, he merely acts in accordance with his programming. he isn't an autonomous living entity, he's a machine, a little robot man with a little robot brain that beeps and boops and algorithmically guides him down a predetermined path, the rails of which were laid down long before he was born. "he simply marches on" indeed, like a fucking ant.

[Anonymous No.14594413]

>>14594379
No he didn't, moron.

[Anonymous No.14594421]

>They are no philosophical race ‑ these English: Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit in general, Hobbes, Hume and Locke a debasement and devaluation of the concept `philosopher' for more than a century. It was against Hume that Kant rose up; it was Locke of
whom Schelling had a right to say: je méprise Locke'; in their struggle against the English-mechanistic stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer were (with Goethe) of one accord: those two hostile brother geniuses who strove apart towards the antithetical poles of the German spirit and in doing so wronged one another as only brothers wrong one another. ‑ What is lacking in England and always has been lacking was realized well enough by that semi‑actor and rhetorician, the tasteless muddlehead Carlyle, who tried to conceal behind passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely what was lacking in Carlyle ‑ real power of spirituality, real depth of spiritual insight, in short philosophy. ‑ It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race that they should cling firmly to Christianity: they need its discipline if they are to become `moral' and humane. The Englishman, gloomier, more sensual, stronger of will and more brutal than the German ‑ is for just that reason, as the more vulgar of the two, also more pious than the German: he is in greater need of Christianity. To finer nostrils even this English Christianity possesses a true English by‑scent of the spleen and alcoholic excess against which it is with good reason employed as an antidote ‑ the subtler poison against the coarser: and indeed a subtle poisoning is in the case of coarse peoples already a certain progress, a step towards spiritualization. English coarseness and peasant seriousness still finds its most tolerable disguise in Christian gestures and in praying and psalm‑singing: more correctly, it is best interpreted and given a new meaning by those things; and as for those drunken and dissolute cattle who formerly learned to grunt morally under the constraint of Methodism and more recently as the `Salvation Army', a spasm of penitence may really be the highest achievement of `humanity' to which they can be raised: that much may fairly be conceded. But what offends in even the most humane Englishman is, to speak metaphorically (and not metaphorically), his lack of music: he has in the movements of his soul and body no rhythm and dance, indeed not even the desire for rhythm and dance, for `music'. Listen to him speak; watch the most beautiful Englishwomen walk ‑ in no land on earth are there more beautiful doves and swans ‑ finally: listen to them sing! But I ask too much . . .

[Anonymous No.14594460]

>>14594421
Yet further evidence that Nietzsche was a shitposter, not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.14594461]

>>14594409
I hope you're being ironic. If it didn't occur to you that you may be doing the same thing while writing that post, you're just as bad as the "STEM insect"

[Anonymous No.14594466]

>>14591541
Ask me how I know you are not good at maths. Every brilliant math person loves philosophy and knows that both are very related to eachother in a way. You are a moron autist.

[Anonymous No.14594510]

Aphorism the Chad method of philosophy and science
empiricists are fags and virgins

[Anonymous No.14594522]

>>14594460
A shitposter who was right about almost everything he said.

[Anonymous No.14594524]

>>14589526
bro, have you read Will to Power? He calls the philosophers frauds. He calls scientists frauds. He's a mystic.

[The Prophet !!lwPyLS41HmK No.14594525]

>>14589506
Without philosophy there is no science

[Anonymous No.14594578]

>>14594387
Interesting points; you are almost certainly reading what you want into the replication crisis. The psychological claims that were made with bad theories and tested with bad methodologies didn't replicate; the ones that were sound did replicate and continue to. Plenty of groundbreaking findings have survived the crisis intact.

Outpatient therapy is but one of many potential applications of psychological research but it's disingenuous to conflate the two, and your anecdote is unfortunately dwarfed by CBT's track record; in many cases it's the only thing that has truly helped patients.

At any rate there are plenty of areas where I maintain a healthy skepticism of psych findings (the field has done all kinds of damage with parenting advice based on wacked out causal chains that misinterpret kids' inheriting their parents' genetic traits as the result of actions taken on the part of the parents) but I stop well short of the "psychology = astrology" meme which is very on trend right now and mainly taken up by people who find the implications of IQ research icky

Thank you for arguing in good faith and not being a gigantic faggot; tonight I'll break out my copy of Scruton's "On Human Nature" and see what he has to say. I'll welcome any book recs on this topic as well

[Anonymous No.14594642]

>>14594127
>science has answered more of them, more decisively in half a century than philosophy has in millenia
What are the big questions and how has science answered them? Have they finally defined justice, love, piety, and virtue? Has it answered why there is something rather nothing?
Psychology is just a shitty subdivision of philosophy that larps as science

[Anonymous No.14594935]

>>14591696
What gives you the authority to decide what a good rat is or what it does?
Psycho

[Anonymous No.14594968]

>>14594466
>Every brilliant math person loves philosophy
philosotard cope

[Anonymous No.14594986]

>>14594968
It's true, anon.

[Anonymous No.14594991]

Philosophy is construction, Science is reduction

[Anonymous No.14595000]

>>14592644
>intuitively
philosocucks actually believe this lmfao

[Anonymous No.14595005]

>>14594986
Cope

[Anonymous No.14595014]

>>14592181
>ph-philosophy is t-totally worthwhile
>okay, how?
>h-haha got you your stupid for asking and I w-win
it’s all so tedious.

[Anonymous No.14595067]

>>14589506
Why shouldn't we make these statements? You're right that it becomes dogma, if its allowed to, but having concrete documents that deal with such clearly important issues givea the opportunity for later generations to "explore the options." We can only hope that later generations are smart enough not to become dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.14595069]

>>14589722
Yes, academia is largely LARPers. No really, they see themselves as the successors to great philosophers needfully bringing their enlightened 'ideas' to 'correct' the world.

[Anonymous No.14595089]

>>14591245
What was that? Speak up humanitiescel, don't mumble if you have something to say.