[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 93 KB, 467x496, 1609590900373.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201376 No.17201376 [Reply] [Original]

>To bring philosophy closer to the form of science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title 'love of knowing' and be actual knowing

Holy based

>> No.17201402
File: 148 KB, 800x789, C54964D2-ECCE-49CD-9BED-F5BE67560188.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201402

>To bring philosophy closer to the form of science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title 'love of knowing' and be actual knowing

>> No.17201408

>>17201402
Fpbp

>> No.17201430
File: 85 KB, 728x546, introduction-evolutionary-psychology-1-728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201430

>>17201402
>>17201408
seethe more. science answers everything. Quine knew this.

>> No.17201433

If you take the philo out of philosophy, don't you just have sophistry?

>> No.17201474

>>17201433
True. Knowledge without understanding kills the soul. But I think the quote in the OP is saying philosophy should lay claims to absolute knowledge like science

Since we want absolute knowledge, isn't this the knowledge of Platonic Forms?

>> No.17201485

>>17201430
Can you answer why science justifies the statement made in your post?

>> No.17201502

>>17201402
>>17201408
>>17201485
Fags seeking knowledge instead of acquiring it

>> No.17201558
File: 145 KB, 850x1097, Evolved-Psychological-Mechanisms-Identified-in-Evolutionary-Psychology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201558

>>17201485
yes. it contributes to evolutionary fitness.

>> No.17201571

>>17201376
refuted by Leibniz's Mill

>> No.17201583
File: 19 KB, 399x384, 03F06E9D-BE26-468D-AB68-0EA78430C1F3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201583

>> No.17201594

>>17201558
Missed the point. Can't do science without a philosophy of science, even if it's assumed uncritically.

>> No.17201629

>>17201376
Anglos were a mistake

>> No.17201637

>>17201629
That’s Hegel, retard.

>> No.17201716
File: 28 KB, 1152x648, 1020213023023023023.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201716

>> No.17201795

>>17201430
Evolutionary psychology is not falsifiable and it is pseudoscience. No real scientist takes it seriously.

>> No.17201959
File: 414 KB, 2048x1152, EPEZSFmUUAACxW-.jpg_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17201959

>>17201795
wrong.

>> No.17201989

>>17201376
Philosophy will never be a science because humans are retarded. It's been at least 3,000 years and still we barely agree on anything. Rationalism has utterly failed.

>> No.17202168

>>17201989
>Something is true only if people agree on it universally.
Anon I...

>> No.17202238

>>17202168
you must know that's not my point

>> No.17203043
File: 12 KB, 217x232, plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17203043

>>17201376
This was BTFO by Plato in the Symposium. It is the affection itself that predates the search for knowledge. Tune your Thumos.

>> No.17203070

>>17201959
Except I'm not wrong and Pinker is a joke.
No biologist or neuroscientist takes evopsych seriously.

>> No.17203220
File: 169 KB, 1600x900, 1062885-Willard-Van-Orman-Quine-Quote-Physics-investigates-the-essential.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17203220

>>17203070
biology and neuroscience take evolutionary psychology as a given for explaining the significance which accompanies the physical structures that their fields investigate. they work in tandem and i haven't met a single biologist who would assume any model of psychology besides an evolutionary one. same goes for neuroscientists. if you're assertion is that we can reduce all causal narratives down to the behavior of amino acids and neuronal activity, I agree. but as for the "social" or "mental" coloring which accompanies that causality, along with the epistemological aspect, that obviously falls under the domain of evolutionary psychology.

>> No.17203306

philosophy keks will seethe because they don't want to actually know truth, only poonder about what it could be - they are afraid of reality, existentially diddled they hide from it behind the increasing weight of their foreheads

>> No.17203317

>>17201474
It's passion for knowledge instead of for power which divides them

>> No.17203383

>>17201716
Based and rationalist pilled

>> No.17203417

>>17201430
What are some good books on evopsych? Can I actually use it in my advantage or will it make me a depressed cuck?

>> No.17203464

hegel isn't talking about a reflexive ideal science not fucking positivism you mooks. the absolute state of this board

>> No.17204430

>>17203464
>pseuds get called out for engaging in a lengthy discussion based on what they mistakenly thought a quote meant because they didn't know its context and couldn't be bothered to check
>thread dies as the locusts move on