[ 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: 40 KB, 800x450, pepefroggie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17682067 No.17682067 [Reply] [Original]

I love reading philosophy but I don't take any of it seriously and just read it as if it were literary fiction.

>> No.17682096

>>17682067
You understand. This is how Hume did philosophy

>> No.17682113

Can you please make your threads with another image? I am tired of seeing this Pepe.

>> No.17682182

>>17682067
I have a similarly apathetic attitude on all of it.

>> No.17682195

Do you take anything seriously?

>> No.17682199

>>17682067
and this is why you will always be a midwit

>> No.17682205

>>17682195
Yes, science and politics.

>> No.17682259

>>17682067
You're doing it right anon.

>> No.17682271

>>17682067
That's actually really based. Fuck pretentious try-hards.

>> No.17682284

>>17682271
>>17682259
>>17682067
brainlet cope. you simply are not talented enough for philosophy if you actually assume there is a superiority to this. there is nothing wrong with reading philosophy causally, but lack of serious engagement just means you aren't a talented philosopher and that is okay

>> No.17682384

>>17682284
>you simply are not talented enough for philosophy
This is actually a complement, it's the equivalent of saying "you aren't talented enough to be a retard". Philosophers are midwits and their ideational excursions should be treated as such i.e. as hypothetical fantasies.

>> No.17682427

>>17682205
logical positivism, pragmatism and scientific methodologism has been refuted almost 200 years ago. But maybe you have a chance to change history once and for all right now, in this thread. Please come up with a statement, that, according to laws and principles of logical continuity, from objective prerequisite(premise), ends with a value based conclusion. Ill be waiting for an answer until the entropy will dry the universe clean.

>> No.17682435

>>17682384
not at all. philosophy is a more primal way of thinking when done right. thinking has a disturbing amount of presuppositions which does nothing but conceal what is most obvious. you might find it retarded because it does not give you extrinsic value.

>> No.17682447

>>17682205
Science and politics without philosophy are aimless.

>> No.17682524

>>17682435
>philosophy is a more primal way of thinking
Absolutely not. Thinking, and more particularly language, cannot be reduced be to philosophical discourse. That is, thinking in its orignary state could not have been philosophy. The latter carries this baggage with it at all times, despite its pretensions. Hence le philosophe's impotence in the face of people like OP who (correctly) put philosophy in its (far smaller) place by reducing it to its more mundane conditions.

>> No.17682558

>>17682524
Hehe yeah true why bother with questions like "what am I supposed to be doing" when I can just kinda pick some random stuff and just do that, oh and also muh science!

>> No.17682623

>>17682427
>scientific methodologism has been refuted almost 200 years ago.
yeah but it works lmao who cares if some faggots 'refuted' it

>> No.17682629

>>17682205
Politics is just applied philosophy you fucking clown

>> No.17682634

>>17682384
Every single way you interact with the world is founded upon philosophy. You have to be ignorant or be genuinely fucking retarded to say the shit you just said

>> No.17682641

>>17682629
incorrect, politics is a sport, ''''''''''political philosophy'''''''''''' is basically the equivalent of those fat boomers who pontificate about sports statistics

>> No.17682651

Whenever someone complains about philosophy, I just remember what my mcdonalds working meth addict high school acquaintance said.
>common sense is worth more than book smarts

>> No.17682652

>>17682067
You ought to enjoy Robert Anton Wilson

>> No.17682659

>>17682651
> dumb person said same thing as u so u wrong
I'm sure you philosophers have some complex term to describe why doing this makes you a faggot

>> No.17682679

>>17682558
>"what am I supposed to be doing"
Questions like this are answered unphilosophically all the time and can ONLY be answered unphilosophically. Philosophy has never answered ANY question because all it can do is needlessly complexify.

>> No.17682683

>>17682659
Plebs all have the same opinions. That's what makes them plebs.

>> No.17682687

>>17682634
I'm sure people were interacting with the world just fine before philosophy departments or written word.

>> No.17682688

>>17682651
He's unironically correct though.

>> No.17682702

>>17682687
That’s a logical fallacy. How things were, even if you were correct, does not mean that should dictate how things happen now.

>> No.17682704

>>17682634
>doing and saying stuff = philosophy
Why are philsophers so retarded? Is me asking someone to pass the salt philosophy? What about a baby asking for its mother, is that philosophy too?

>> No.17682729

>>17682205
>>17682259
>>17682271
>>17682384
yeah it's not like the most important mathematicians and scientists of the last centuries had clear philosophical beliefs
I really hope you are underage because if not you are all midwits. the
>philosophy is fiction lol
is something I would have said in philosophy class when I was 14

>> No.17682743

>>17682729
>the most important mathematicians and scientists
kek even you realize you can only legitimize philosophy by trying to attach it to things that actually matter

>> No.17682745

>>17682729
mathematicians and scientists are just as retarded as philosophers, because as you said, they are philosophers

>> No.17682756

>>17682679
>Questions like this are answered unphilosophically all the time and can ONLY be answered unphilosophically.
What are the answers and how is it possible to avoid philosophy?
>Philosophy has never answered ANY question because all it can do is needlessly complexify.
Yes, it has. Some philosophers might needlessly complexify, others don't. Sounds like you read something too hard and took it personally LOL.

>> No.17682760

>>17682623
It's cute that u cherry picked one little part of what I said, and then made a kindergarten level counter argument to that, and not to my main point. I first wanted to type few paragraphs, but thought that letting your reveal your intelligence or lack of it first, would be more reasonable. You can .. oh wait its NA timezone lol i just unironically replied during NA time first time in my life.. how will I ever reco.. no way I just.. FUCK !! any EU bros in thread that wanna help me to cope with this fact ?!

>> No.17682766

>>17682702
I saw a child today sitting in a baby carriage and reaching out to her mother, I'd wager they didn't need philosophy for much anything to interact with the world.

>> No.17682770

>>17682760
say that to my face and not over the internet and see what happens faggot

>> No.17682777

>>17682729
Your degree is nonsense. Deal with it.

>> No.17682791

>>17682766
Babies lack the capacity to reason, similar to animals. After you reach the age of reason you have the capacity to reason, and thus become responsible for your actions. You can choose not to take advantage of this capacity, a common characteristic of the mob. It results in a pretty low tier, animalistic (what a surprise), existence.

>> No.17682816

>>17682743
>legitimize philosophy
what the fuck does that mean?

>> No.17682822

>>17682704
No I mean every way you think the world is or ought to be is the product of philosophy

>> No.17682826

>>17682760
Science still works and nobody cares what philosophers say about it lmao

>> No.17682827

>>17682816
just face it you philosophers are nothing but a bunch of navel gazing pussies babbling in the corner while STEM chads are out building civilization and fucking hot bitches

>> No.17682830

>>17682822
>>17682687
^^^

>> No.17682833

>>17682756
Answers happen in the moment. The moment is not the purview of philosophy because it is necessarily retrospective.

>> No.17682845

>>17682791
So you admit that there's a mode of human discourse more fundamental than philosophy? Great.

>> No.17682846

>>17682777
>everyone that reads philosophy as a degree in it
holy shit you are dumb. wait till you talk to intelligent people and realize all of them are fluent in philosophy. I mean really intelligent people, not the nigger with the moustache that talks about multiverses

>> No.17682860

>>17682826
What would it even mean for philosophy to "work"? Philosophy is an attempt to make sense of the world and life through ideas, it's tryna make a fuckin plane fly. Philosophy's job to create ideas and abstractions by which we can try to understand the world, and I'd say it's done a fine job.

>> No.17682864

>>17682822
Yes, and "thinking about the world" is necessarily posterior to action in the world. Philosophy is only ever an a posteriori complexification of a worldy action that is not at dependent on the former. There is a mode of human discourse and interaction with the world that is more fundamental than and is the condition of philosophy

>> No.17682867

>>17682846
Pretty much this. You won't meet anyone with a holistic education that doesn't recognize philosophy as being important

>> No.17682881

>>17682864
not at all*

>> No.17682883

>>17682822
People could still breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide even if organic chemistry was never invented. Same goes for thinking and interacting with the world. Philosophy as a study is just circle jerking.

>> No.17682889

>>17682826
What ???

>> No.17682893
File: 62 KB, 976x850, pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17682893

>>17682113
>OP posts picture of pepe
>Anon makes post saying he's tired of seeing this Pepe
>Mfw I read his post

>> No.17682895

>>17682827
Could you really say that the philosophers who came up with liberalism did nothing to build our civilization? Do you think our civilization would be in the place it is had absolute, divine right monarchy remained the main form of government and social organization?

Did capitalism not allow us to manage our resources better than the feudal modes of production (I hate to use marxist terminology) did? Then don't the philosophers who wrote texts propounding capitalism before it was a mainstream ideology not deserve a huge amount of credit for where we've come as a society?

>> No.17682897

>>17682096
Some of the most notable ones did it that way. They’re usually the more interesting philosophers. Somebody like Kant, on the other hand, was a complete autist and a bore living in his own elaborately constructed fantasy world.

>> No.17682900

>>17682883
How are you thinking about how the world is or ought to be when you breathe?

>> No.17682901

>>17682384
based

>> No.17682905

>>17682897
His most famous ideas are in ethics. Would you not say that ethics is the most, if not the only, necessary field of philosophy there is?

>> No.17682909
File: 189 KB, 976x850, 1605830986583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17682909

>>17682113
how's this one

>> No.17682919

>>17682883
When you think about how the world is or ought to be, YOU ARE DOING PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy wasn't "invented," it's an activity that humans do by their very nature. You seem to have a remarkably ignorant view of what philosophy is.

>> No.17682934

>>17682833
The moment has no extension, it doesn't exist. See I can play games too. Stop playing games (which is what philosophers are wrongly accused of) and use your brain to think about how to live. Philosophy is literally more intuitive and common sensical than your nonsense.

>>17682845
What's your point? That we should stay animalistic?

>> No.17682940

>>17682919
Am I doing science while breathing too?

>> No.17682948

>>17682905
It’s probably the most grounded major field of the four.

But he’s also known for his idealism too, which was the foundation for his deontology.

>> No.17682958

>>17682919
Philosophy is to thinking as masturbation is to sex

>> No.17682964

>>17682919
Ontogency recapitulates phylogeny. Babies don't naturally do philosophy, they eventually invent it for themselves. The same goes for the human species as a whole.

>> No.17682975

>>17682934
My point is that philosophy necessarily does not have epistemological superiority over its object. Instead it just has delusions of grandeur.

>> No.17682978

>>17682447
only if you use the 5th century BC definition of philosophy

>> No.17682980

>>17682958
Fucking based

>> No.17682989

>>17682975
Well, what it is is that philosophizing about these problems doesn’t give you any special epistemological access to anything.

Philosophy is good at formulating problems and discovering new ways to think about the world. I wouldn’t say it’s good at solving problems though, which is why it gets a bad rap from laypeople.

>> No.17682996

>>17682934
>use your brain to think about how to live.
I do this everyday without the corrupting influence of philosophy

>> No.17683010

>>17682958
what the fuck does that even mean

>> No.17683014

>>17682940
>>17682958
Unbearable.

ITT: The revolt of the bronze souls.

>>17682964
>muh babies
Just stop posting garbage and go and be infantile if you want. Babies don't belong on the internet nor do babies discuss with the adults.

>>17682975
>epistemological superiority
What does that mean and how does it relate to
>delusions of grandeur

>>17682978
It seems like both definitions make my statement true, but yes, I do prefer to use definitions created by smarter men.

>> No.17683021

>>17682996
What the fuck do you even think philosophy is? When you try to answer "how should we organized society" or "what is the meaning of life" boom you just did some fuckin philosophy.

>> No.17683025

>>17682996
Sounds like you're philosophizing daily. Good for you.

>> No.17683029

>>17683014
philosophy is not necessary for anything. Not all thinking is philosophy. In fact, most philosophy requires little to no thinking. They are largely disjoint.

>> No.17683030

>>17682958
>Philosophy is to thinking
there is literally no other way of "thinking" if your brain functions properly. logic and reason is philosophy

>> No.17683032

>>17683014
lmao absolutely filtered

>> No.17683034

>>17682940
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Is that what you think you're doing when you're breathing?

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about reason, existence, knowledge, values, mind, and language. How can you possibly get through life without doing that?

>> No.17683039

>>17683025
calling all thought "philosophizing" is as stupid as calling it "conducting scientific experiment" when I set my toaster to 2 for one piece of toast and 3 for another to see which works better
>>17683030
>logic and reason is philosophy
but it's not

>> No.17683041

>>17683021
Thinking about answering a question is different from actually answering it. I don't need philosophy to do the latter.

>> No.17683054

>>17683029
>philosophy is not necessary for anything
Depends on our end.
>Not all thinking is philosophy.
Never said it was.
>most philosophy requires little to no thinking
Sounds intuitively wrong.

Cool philosophy though.

>>17683039
I said thinking about how to live is philosophy, not "all thought".

>> No.17683055

Philosophy is the infinite detour from Being, lads. It's just as bad as science. Don't listen to the archons in this thread who claim that it's the only way to Truth.

>> No.17683062

>>17683041
What the fuck does THAT even mean? Are you saying philosophers don't answer their own questions? Are you saying that philosophy doesn't try to answer questions?

>> No.17683065

>>17683039
>but it's not
thanks for accepting defeat you retard

>> No.17683071

>>17683014
>>muh babies
This is actually an incredibly pertinent point though that you've failed to address.

>> No.17683072

>>17683039
You're trying to answer existential questions. Idfk what you think philosophy is if not that

>> No.17683082

>>17683034
>Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about reason, existence, knowledge, values, mind, and language. How can you possibly get through life without doing that?
You can get through life very easily without doing it by relying on folk beliefs.

Every functional adult has ethical and epistemological thoughts about the world, but they’re often just folk beliefs.

>> No.17683087

>>17683014
>What does that mean
I thought les philosophes were all smart cookies? It means that philopshy does not, and cannot (on a technical level) do what it sets out to do. See my previous replies for more.

>> No.17683088

>>17683054
>Cool philosophy though
You're just demonstrating that you don't know what that word means. The term is "observation"
>thinking about how to live is philosophy
but it's not. Or, alternatively, the terw philosophy is so general as to be entirely useless. Would you prefer that?

>> No.17683098

>>17683072
>>17683065
philosophy is mostly masturbation about terms, faulty arguments relying on hand-wavy explanations, and putting the cart before the horse

>> No.17683104

>>17682958
quality observation

>> No.17683109

>>17683062
You are fucking retarded and not as smart as you think you are

>> No.17683114

>>17683098
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and have drawn this conclusion after, at most, 2 college Phil classes

>> No.17683126

>>17683071
I did address it earlier, I see nothing left to talk about on the matter.
>>17683087
>I thought les philosophes were all smart cookies?
I guess you thought wrong, I am a pretty simple person.
>It means that philopshy does not, and cannot (on a technical level) do what it sets out to do.
Just give me the source material for that argument and lets move on then.

>>17683088
???

>> No.17683129

There are literally only 3 philosophical questions and you can't answer any of them

>1. What is consciousness
Nobody has ever even begun to say anything useful about this

>2. What is all of reality
This one is in an even worse state than the first

>3. What should we do
This one is entirely fucking arbitrary, and is actually just a sort of error someone made by chopping off the second half of the sentence which should read 'if we want to accomplish x'

Thousands of years have been spent on this lmao, they have gotten NOWHERE

>> No.17683130

>>17683109
>have a belief that I can't justify because I know nothing of what's being discussed
>throw around some meaningless sentences and buzzwords I heard from Neil deGrasse Tyson to defend myself
>other people call me out for saying nothing
>call them retarded

>> No.17683135
File: 46 KB, 700x641, 1610924615838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683135

This thread has really shown me how insecure philosophlets really are.

>> No.17683138

>>17683129
>There are literally only 3 philosophical questions
And where the fuck are you getting this

>> No.17683147

>>17683082
Metaphysical ones too like about god. But again, folk beliefs.

These are just topics human beings naturally think about. Philosophy systematizes this behavior.

>> No.17683149

I've found that one's opinion regarding the usefulness of philosophy accords to the "bottomwit, midwit, topwit" meme, whereby those on the top and the bottom—those who have read the most philosophy and no philosophy—understand its ultimate uselessness, while it's only really the midwits who believe it constitutes a way to truth.

>> No.17683157

>>17682897
>>17682096
>>17682067
me too op. you are in the right track. you need to stay out of it and not take parties to realize all the bullshit inside it

>> No.17683159

>>17683114
I've never taking a philosophy course lol why would I kek. Do you think I took underwater basket weaving too?

>> No.17683161

>>17683126
Where did you address it?

>> No.17683165

>>17683149
This is true with certain types of philosophy. I've found that midwits are the ones that try to find rational explanations for everything about existence, and topwits just say fuck it an live their lives.

But you have to be a true dimwit to think that fields like ethics are useless.

>> No.17683166

>>17683126
>Just give me the source material
Just read Derrida

>> No.17683172

>>17683130
>be a retard
>receive response befitting of a retard
ftfy

>> No.17683173

>>17683165
"don't be an asshole''
Literally more useful than the entire field of ethical philosophy. Every single one of them would be better off if they just tried to do that

>> No.17683175

>>17683159
Neither have I but it's just clear that you are incredibly ignorant about philosophy, its aims, and its methods.

And I mean whatever go out and live your life, hating philosophy certainly won't impeded your life's journey, but just admit when you're ignorant

>> No.17683186

>>17683173
Ok... what makes someone an asshole?

>> No.17683188

>>17683173
"don't be an asshole" is how you get your country filled with nogs and immigrants.

>> No.17683190

>>17683161
Sort of addressed it... I don't know what the point is so I simply explained reality.
>>17682791
I really just don't care anymore tbqh and I am about to get off 4chan once the other anon tells me which philosopher philosophized that philosophy will never do what it sets out to do.

>>17683166
Ah here it is. Thanks.

>> No.17683193

>>17683188
No it's not, not letting random people into your country has never even vaguely qualified as being an asshole. Being uber-charitable is saintlike, and forcing other people to be charitable for you is tyrannical

>> No.17683194

>>17683173
Holy shit we found him, the true dimwit

>> No.17683197

>>17683098
>>17683098
>humiliates himself by saying logic is not philosophy
>still replies again with an edgy opinion
go home
>>17683149
>understand its ultimate uselessness, while it's only really the midwits who believe it constitutes a way to truth.
truth and uselessness are not related till you provide an argument for it. if you had studied philosophy you would not commit these fallacies, midwit

>> No.17683203

>>17683186
No, I see what you're leading into and it won't work. You know just as well as I do, despite us likely being on separate parts of the planet with entirely different backgrounds and cultures, what the difference is between an asshole and not.

>> No.17683205

Can a proponent of philosophy in this thread please present one (1) philosophical question that has been answered by the discipline of philosophy whose answer is *universally* agreed upon.

>> No.17683206

>>17683194
See you just failed right there at not being an asshole. You haven't even learned to walk and you're trying to run off with your ebin ethical theories

>> No.17683213

>>17682826
But it does not. Talk to a "scientist" and they will tell you that. You either play the game or leave. Science is just politics. There is a reason why PhD dropout rates are so high. It is simply bullshit.

>> No.17683214

>>17683190
>I don't know what the point is
Well then you couldn't have truly addressed it

>> No.17683215

>>17683203
On a base level I'm sure that's true, but it gets trickier the deeper you go.

For example, does having an abortion make you "an asshole?" I'm sure we could have a 10 hour long ethical discussion about that.

>> No.17683222

>>17683213
>But it does not
So the phone you're posting from right now works from magic?

>> No.17683224

>>17683175
I'm not ignorant of its intentions, I just don't think it accomplishes anything close in practice, and so it's cringe to me when philosophy nuts claim that any sort of normal self-reflection or thinking about life is philosophy. Maybe under the technical definition, it qualifies, but "thinking about life" predates philosophy as a subject, and philosophy as a subject, in practice, is extremely cringe and not at all based.

>> No.17683225

>>17683206
Sorry anon I didn't mean to hurt any feelings

>> No.17683227

>>17683197
logic isn't philosophy. At best, philosophy relies on logic. But logic itself is just logic. Or do you think mathematics is philosophy too?

>> No.17683234

>>17683214
ok, cya

>> No.17683236

>>17683197
>truth and uselessness are not related till you provide an argument for it
Nah. Usefulness is the pre-philosophical condition of truth. Topwits performatively enact the argument by simply not arguing for it.

>> No.17683240
File: 224 KB, 859x960, 1601754964990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683240

Now that the philosophyfags of this board have been utterly defeated, we philosphylessfags can leave the board in triumph, heads held high, as we go to life and act intuitively. Our future is bright philosophyless Chads. We shall bask in the sunlight, copulate with human females, and influence causal chains without a single forethought. The world and all life has to offer is in the palm of our muscular, active hands.

>> No.17683251

>>17683240
Based. I instinctively know this is true

>> No.17683252

>>17683213
That means academia doesn't work, not science

>> No.17683253

>>17683227
Logic falls within philosophy. It falls within math as well. There is mathematical logic, but that’s different than something like predicate logic.

And yet, mathematical proofs rely on predicate logic...
Untangling all of this sounds like a topic for philosophy of mathematics!

>> No.17683256

>>17683224
>predates philosophy as a subject
I don't think about Phil as a subject, I think of it as an activity so fundamental to human existence that nothing could predate it that doesn't predate language.

>accomplishes anything close in practice
But are you really gonna tell me that Karl Marx's philosophy accomplished nothing in practice? Regardless of the effects it had or your opinion on communism, Marx's philosophy was practically very impactful.

>> No.17683258

>>17683186
When you feel like 'this guy is not on my team is he'

>> No.17683261

>>17683240
I wish I were like you anon. But alas, my brain has condemned me to ponder existential questions until I'm dead and buried.

>> No.17683265

>>17683222
I am not a phone poster, plebeian. In fact, phone posters should receive seven day bans by default in order to avoid threads like these.


>>17683252
I am okay with that phrasing. Science is too broad. It basically implies transfer of well established knowledge.

>> No.17683269

>>17683253
Is pure math a form of philosophy?!
That would be pretty wild.

It definitely comes off that way if you’ve ever studied it.
It’s weird to imagine that, huh?
Is it possible?

>> No.17683270

>>17683265
nullius in verba nigger

>> No.17683276

>>17683253
>there is mathematical logic, but that's different than something like predicate logic
please be bait
>>17683256
>I don't think of it as a subject, I think of it as an activity
cool, you and no one else. Use standard definitions of words, or clarify when you are using words in non-standard ways.
>accomplished nothing in practice
I didn't say this, I said doesn't accomplish its purported aims. The only semi-useful thing I can attribute to philosophy is potentially some political theory leading to American revolution. But that same stuff led to the French revolution, which was shit

>> No.17683285

>>17683270
Yeah good luck with that. That is just LARP.

>> No.17683291
File: 58 KB, 805x1023, depositphotos_13127874-stock-photo-lady-wagging-her-finger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683291

>>17682652
>You ought

>> No.17683299

>>17683285
>expecting me to take his word for it that it's just larp
I don't think so

>> No.17683301
File: 61 KB, 640x480, images (6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683301

I really can't take these threads seriously after this man.

>> No.17683302
File: 19 KB, 242x257, 1342275197028.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17683302

>>17683299

>> No.17683321

>>17683276
>Mathematical logic is often divided into the fields of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof theory. These areas share basic results on logic, particularly first-order logic, and definability.
Predicate logic does not fall within the scope of mathematical logic, although mathematical logic shares basic results on first-order logic, which would include predicate logic.

>> No.17683328

>>17683301
These are some of the very best threads for shitposting, it's like the ballet of shitposting

>> No.17683329

>>17683166
Asked my friend who is in the classics and is extremely well read about Derrida.

>The figurehead of the post 1960's academy
>Amongst other disgusting things

Yeah I am not surprised that toxic garbage comes from toxic people. I will pass on your anti philosophic modern ideology.

>> No.17683334

>>17683321
Yes, but philosophy has no more claim to base logic results than mathematics does. First-order logic is the fundamental base, and both mathematics and philosophy rely on it to prove anything. But logic itself is not philosophy

>> No.17683356

>>17683329
Is your friend named Peterson by any chance?

>> No.17683358

>>17683334
Logic is considered one of the four branches of philosophy.
Does first-order logic fall under that? I don’t know.

It’s a formal, deductive system. It’s not math.

>> No.17683367

>>17683010
The organ turns in on itself instead of directing to useful pursuits

>> No.17683381

>>17683358
SEP considers formal formal systems and deductive systems mathematical objects tho, from what I’m seeing now:
>Today, logic is a branch of mathematics and a branch of philosophy. In most large universities, both departments offer courses in logic, and there is usually a lot of overlap between them. Formal languages, deductive systems, and model-theoretic semantics are mathematical objects and, as such, the logician is interested in their mathematical properties and relations.
>Soundness, completeness, and most of the other results reported below are typical examples. Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity. So logic is at least closely allied with epistemology.

I can accept that. I’ve never read philosophy of mathematics, just philosophy of science.

>> No.17683389

>>17683358
>Logic is considered one of the four branches of philosophy
by who? philosophers? kek. Philosophers don't own logic any more than mathematicians, linguists, or computer scientists.
>It's a formal, deductive system
As is math (or, parts of it)
>It's not math.
I never said it was. I said that math and philosophy both depend on logic, but philosophy does not own logic.

>> No.17683428

>>17683389
Well, logic started out in philosophy historically. It has been a part of philosophy since antiquity. It’s only been studied in mathematics since the 19th century.

>> No.17683469

>>17683428
you're mixing up terms. First order logic is the basis of both philosophy and mathematics. Formal mathematical or philosophical proof is not possible without it. Both mathematicians and philosophers have been concerned with logic for this reason since their inception.

Separate from that, both mathematical logic and the philosophy of logic came up as fields of study in the 19th century.
>It has been a part of philosophy since antiquity
not an argument. Everything was philosophy in antiquity -- science, math, metaphysics, astrology, ethics, political theory, ... That definition of philosophy is far broader than the current field.

>> No.17683474

so basically this thread's shitdebate boils down to two claims
>philosophy has some clear intentions/objetives that have not been accomplished
>philosophy is unnecesary
for the first one you need to define what are philosophy's objetives and who says that those are philosophy's objetives. for the second one, what unecessary/neccesary means in that context

>> No.17683484

>>17683474
yeh this is exactly the sort of discussion someone interested in philosophy would suggest, and it's exactly why we think it's so useless

>> No.17683492

>>17683474
and then you have the obnoxious faggot with his turd position that nobody asked for

>> No.17683515

>>17683205
why do you faggots always want a universal answer from what by nature must be a contentious fight for meaning

>> No.17683531

>>17683484
>philosophy is useless
what do you mean with "useless"?
>hahaha gotch u! that's why we think is useless!!!

fuck off nigger

>> No.17683541

>>17683531
>what do you mean with "useless"?
not going to engage in your pointless discussion of terms

>> No.17683543

>>17683469
>First order logic is the basis of both philosophy and mathematics.
No, plenty of philosophy uses propositional logic, which doesn’t use formal language.
First-order logic wasn’t even developed until the 19th century.

Propositions are not mathematical objects.

>> No.17683566

>>17682067
>I love reading philosophy
Yeh me too, its like fitness training for the intellect
>don't take it seriously
bro show me one thing to take seriously and I'll lmao and meme it til it squeals
philosophy is no more pointless than anything else

>> No.17683571

>>17683541
then don't use them. words have meanings, sorry about it

>> No.17683580

>>17683543
sorry, I misused terms. Prepositional logic is what I meant, and I didn't mean "formal proof" in sense of formal logic, I just meant "rigorous proof"

>Propositions are not mathematical objects
No, they're logical ones. And are used for both math and philosophy.
Logic is its own fundamental subject, it is not a field of philosophy. Both philosophy and mathematics rely on logic, but mathematics doesn't rely on philosophy.

>> No.17683585

>>17683571
>words have meanings
yes, exactly, which is why I don't have to define what I mean every time I say them

>> No.17683676

>>17683585
>I don't have to
you don't "have" to do anything besides breathing and eating, dummy
the point is not to clarify the definition of each word you use, is to support the claims you make with actual arguments

>> No.17683690

>>17683329
Your friend sounds like a midwit

>> No.17683711

>>17683580
>Logic is its own fundamental subject
It’s shared between philosophy and mathematics.
But my feeling is that most of logic is made up of mathematical objects. Even propositions show up in modern formal logic as objects of a formal language, making them mathematical objects.
But in something like Aristotelian logic, it’s a linguistic object.

But this is all from the context of the modern viewpoint of philosophy. You have to remember for centuries, logic did not fall under the scope of mathematics... even recognizing something like deductive systems as mathematical objects.

>> No.17683723

>>17683711
modern viewpoint of logic*

>> No.17684084

>>17683690
No he's upper crust intelligence wise for sure. You're probably making fatal errors somewhere, or you're just all pseud ego and not concerned with content. Either way, buzz off modernist.

>> No.17684096

>>17682067
>>17682096
>>17682182
>>17682259
>>17682271
HOLY MIDWIT

>> No.17684245

>>17684096
Everything looks like the middle when you're at the bottom.

>> No.17684992
File: 290 KB, 1920x1080, 20160126_LAUGHINGimage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17684992

>>17682629
>Politics is just applied philosophy you fucking clown

>let's ask philosophers how they think we should run our politics- said no politican ever

You must be baiting

>> No.17685210

>>17682205
>>Yes, science and politics.
fucking lel, peak atheism

>> No.17685213

>>17683474
>>for the first one you need to define what are philosophy's objetives and who says that those are philosophy's objetives.
philosophers ask questions and they don't offer any answer, especially an answer which is not based on social constructs destroyed once the current dogmas are destroyed

>> No.17685271

>>17683149
I know that philosophy is useless, meaning that it is no means to accomplish anything, but I still think it's still one of the greatest things you can do as a human. It just feels right and I don't care what anyone else thinks

>> No.17685274

>>17682067
based deleuze frogposter

>> No.17685277

>>17683222
science is not technology and the fact that you are conflating the two shows that science has come to an end

>> No.17685415

>>17683138
its called epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Every person who ever read any philosophy knows this?

>> No.17685600

>tfw love to read philosophy but think most of the consensus opinions are idiotic
>am moral anti-realist and think error theory BTFOs realists
>think compatibilism is bullshit and you've just redefined free will into a tautology
>qualia has definitely been quined
All of these positions, while unpopular among philosophers, have at least double digit support and dozens of intelligent people arguing for them. No side can prove the other wrong, so I sometimes fear that philosophy is really just a game of language and isn't actually *capable* of distinguishing truth from untruth. Worst case scenario: most philosophical questions are (to borrow mathematical language) undecidable.

>> No.17686194

>>17685600
>qualia has definitely been quined
suck ma dick

>> No.17686299

>>17686194
Only if you're cute.

>> No.17686312

>>17682067
Based OP. Philosophy is literally that.

>> No.17686377
File: 59 KB, 750x745, 1605147107637.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17686377

>>17682205
Go back