[ 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: 108 KB, 282x400, socrates.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910481 No.1910481 [Reply] [Original]

Is philosophy still relevant?

>> No.1910484

Relevant to whom?

>> No.1910485

Not to me. Science explains the world and from that all can be derived.

>> No.1910488

Yes, but not to this board.

>> No.1910493

It's people's duty to be relevant to it, not the other way around. But again, people are tireless in finding reasons not to read, or exert themselves.

>> No.1910496

Philosophy will be relevant until the end of time, since nobody will ever really know the 'truth'.

>> No.1910498

>>1910481
I dunno, OP. You know what would help to answer this question?
philosophy

>> No.1910501

To pragmatic life? Not at all, except if you take in effect some little things in action.

Otherwise, it's still relevant in a second plane. Just imagine what would the angry atheist in Facebook do without Nietsche's quotes.

>> No.1910505

why is there always philosophy related threads on /lit/?
Its like posting psychology related threads on /soc/.

>> No.1910506

>>1910485
Unfortunately for you, science rests upon a series of philosophical assumptions; to say that science does not need philosophy is akin to saying the light in a room does not need the light bulb which emits it.

>> No.1910507

Philosophy is dieing since science took over in explaining the world. It will completely die when science can explain everything.

Ideology is dead with a youth doing not but bullshit and facebook, and governments doing what the Worldbank/IMF/Fed says.

>> No.1910508

>>1910507
dying*
nothing but bullshit*

Sorry, I'm tired.

>> No.1910509

>>1910506

Like what?

>> No.1910520
File: 22 KB, 510x361, Teihard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910520

From our experimental point of view, reflection is, as the word indicates, the power acquired by a consciousness to turn in upon itself, to take possession of itself as of an object endowed with its own particular consistence and value: no longer merely to know oneself; no longer merely to know, but to know that one knows. <...>

And we are happy to admit that the birth of intelligence corresponds to a turning in upon itself, not only of the nervous system, but of the whole being.
—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

>> No.1910521

>>1910509
Not the some person (obviously), but the short answer is that science rests upon the assumption that empiricism is a valid way of knowing the world.

Of course, science produces shit that industry and the state need, so really it doesn't matter if science is philosophically sound as long as it manages to keep making better weapons and shinier iPads.

>> No.1910525

>>1910509
Well, are you a scientific realist or instrumentalist? A Reductionists? If so, how far?

Are you a determinist, indeterminist, or incompatibilist? Based upon that answer, how do you claim to reconcile quantum mechanics with more general physics while maintaining your philosophical stance?

This goes on and on and we aren't even getting into some of the epistemological issues!

Einstein said that the difference between a technician and a true scientist was whether or not they embraced philosophy as critical to the search for truth.

>> No.1910528
File: 114 KB, 228x228, herg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910528

>>1910496
>he thinks there is a 'truth'

>> No.1910533

>>1910521

Empiricism and science by extension rest on the basis of logic.

I don't know what the fuck "rationalism" is based on but it's silly.

>> No.1910535
File: 3 KB, 109x127, gentroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910535

>>1910528
So, are you willing to state that there is absolutely no absolute truth?

>> No.1910538

>>1910525

>Well, are you a scientific realist or instrumentalist? A Reductionists? If so, how far?

I don't know what those words mean.

>Are you a determinist, indeterminist, or incompatibilist? Based upon that answer, how do you claim to reconcile quantum mechanics with more general physics while maintaining your philosophical stance?

Determinist. What is there to reconcile? I believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that is not to say it is necessarily the correct one.

>> No.1910542

>>1910533
Yeah, but empiricism is only one system of logic, one among many. I'm not saying, "fuck empiricism". I just get antsy when people say, "Empiricism only. The rest of the epistemological universe be damned."

>> No.1910555

>>1910538
>>1910533
Perfect examples of what philosophy is for, actually.

>> No.1910567

>>1910485
Isn't that a philosophical position?

>> No.1910571

>>1910567
we must also consider that
>>1910485
has missed a fundamental question: *does* science 'explain' the world or does science merely measure it?

>> No.1910586

>>1910535
I am. Even if one believes in absolute truth, it is simply a belief, making it non-absolute by nature.

>> No.1910592

>>1910507
Implying that one day science will explain everythig.

>> No.1910593

>>1910567

If it is then this is just a semantics quibble because my point was that one doesn't need to understand or study philosophy at all to understand and promote science.

>>1910571

It explains it. Not fully, yet, but there is no reason to assume it can't and there is no reason to assume any discipline could possibly explain it better although they are welcome to try it.

>> No.1910600

It's on the same level as religion

>> No.1910604

>>1910593
Science will never explain the very axioms or postulates it is based upon. Science does not seek to. You clearly have read very little of scientific philosophy, i suggest you start with Popper, as he is in high regard by the majority of the community today.

>> No.1910610

>>1910604

>You clearly have read very little of scientific philosophy

Is it not obvious? I have no interest in reading about philosophy.

>> No.1910615

>>1910610
This is why the neo-Atheists can't win a debate against William Lane Craig.

>> No.1910619

>>1910604

>However, although Popper was a body-mind dualist, he did not think that the mind is a substance separate from the body: he thought that mental or psychological properties or aspects of people are distinct from physical ones.[14]

This Popper doesn't sound like a very smart fellow either, believing in things like free will.

>> No.1910624

>>1910619
If you don't like Popper, try Putnam.

Face it Philosophy is very important within science (I am a physics major), when combined with the scientific method it is unstoppable.

>> No.1910625

>>1910619
Free will is what all the cool kids are talking about these days.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid651017566001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAGuNzXFE~,qu1BWJR
U7c26MMkbB19ukwmFB5ysvYz5&bctid=902909907001

>> No.1910626

I cringe everytime I see a thread like this, simply for the fact that, usually, it seems no one knows what philosophy is, and talk about it like it's a bunch of stoned guys making up random theories. People mock Nietzsche without having ever read him. Hell, people disregard philosophy because LOL SCIENSCE without having ever read Aristotle, and that is beyond ignorant.

I thank people like >>1910506 , >>1910521 , >>1910520 and >>1910604 for not letting the ball drop.

It just makes me sad that people like >>1910600 and >>1910610 seem to celebrate ignorance, specially on such a relevant subject.

>>1910619
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."
Karl Popper
I wish you could see how much of a biggot you sound like. I really do.

>> No.1910629

>>1910626
I agree, but aristotle is a bad example. He did kind of keep modern physics back for over 1000 years.

>> No.1910633

>>1910615

What the fuck is a "neo-atheist" ? And I'd like to see this man debate some prominent atheists.

>>1910624

I'll take that under consideration.

>>1910626

Would you say the same thing if I was mocking someone who believed the Earth is flat too?

>> No.1910643

>What the fuck is a "neo-atheist" ?

The latest crop of proselytizing scientism advocates taking their cues from people Dawkins.

>> No.1910644

>>1910629
He also laid the ground for the scientific method so I think it's still a valid example.

>>1910633
>implying the Earth being round is a theory
See what your silly defense mechanisms are making you say, anon? But I'm glad you said you'll take something in consideration, I can't expect nothing more.

>> No.1910648

>>1910633
Neo-Atheists are the folks like Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. And they are terrible philosophers, but wonderful demagogues, which makes them perfect to lead the new religion of Neo-Atheism.

Here is a lulzy debate between Hitchens and Craig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

>> No.1910653

>>1910644
you clearly have not read his ideas about resisted motion

>> No.1910654

>>1910643
>>1910648

Well it's a good thing I don't care about those guys or take my "cues" from anyone and therefore am not a neo-atheist.

>>1910644

Ok, what if I mocked someone who didn't believe in evolution then?

>> No.1910659

Not very.

>> No.1910696

>>1910653
I never claimed to have done so. Don't see how that's relevant nor how that invalidates his relevance, but I'll look into it.

>>1910654
Natural selection is pretty observable. You don't seem to have understood the point at all and is just seeking examples which will validate your point of view. I quoted Popper just in answer to your comment on free will, which was ignorant. Trying to find obvious phalacies, specially those associated with religion, won't change that.

>> No.1910725

>>1910696

But believing mental and psychological properties of people are seperate from physical properties is just as preposterous and without any logical basis.

>> No.1910750

>>1910538

> I don't know what those words mean

Every time I find myself thinking that, you know what I do? I reach for the nearest dictionary, or the nearest Wikipedia-capable device I own. Not knowing something is ALWAYS a good reason to discover why.

It is this curiosity which drives a good scientist.

I am a scientist myself and it makes me cringe every time I hear a colleague or peer denigrate philosophy or liberal education. I have put great effort into reading widely, including 'the classics' of Western canon and many non-fiction works of philosophy and inquiry. There is no reason why science precludes a wider understanding. As others have stated, among them Einstein and Feynman, science is worthless if taken alone and without a greater grounding.

Science is not a faith; it is not a source of reason. It - the scientific method - is a tool for the discovery and development of new models and new ideas; new ways of conceiving of our surroundings. The curiosity which underpins scientific endeavour is the curiosity of great minds since time began. To lack the curiosity required to research some new words demonstrates a lack of interest in the world around us.

I challenge anybody who declares they are above philosophy or beyond non-scientific education; they are surely not a good scientist.

>> No.1910759

Of course it is.

How should a man live his life?

What ethics should he follow?

What ideals should he aspire to?

>> No.1910764

>>1910759
Surely science can answer all those questions.

>> No.1910769
File: 11 KB, 252x221, 1289972175364.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910769

>This thread
>philosophy threads on /lit/ in general

>> No.1910770

>>1910759
Is your post an answer to >>1910725 ?

>> No.1910772

>>1910750

Actually I did look them up on Wikipedia but would've felt disingenious talking about them as if I had known them all along.

Also I welcome all attempts to tell me something about this world that can't be told with science. So far I'm not impressed.

>> No.1910784

>>1910772
Ethics comes immediatly to mind.

>> No.1910788

>>1910784

I should've specified: FACTS about this world.

>> No.1910790

>>1910759

No sir, it was not.

>>1910772

The real point of interest is: which things are there which we want answers for but which cannot be provided by science?

The obvious ones - "what happens when I die" - are there, but they aren't the interesting ones, from where I stand.

Interesting questions are ones like "how can I do good?" or "who should I vote for?".

These questions cannot be given definitive answers (in the 1+1=2 sense), but philosophy allows us to deduce answers which are right for us. Science, as a quantitative instrument, cannot measure these qualitative questions; not because it's impotent, but because it's just not that kind of inquiry system. Philosophy can.

>> No.1910795

>>1910790

Is applying logic to issues considered philosophizing?

>> No.1910796

>> 1910788

(me again!) Follow up to my last post:

Facts aren't the interesting pieces of knowledge. Facts are indeed the province of science - philosophy will never give you facts.

However, facts alone are useless. We can do nothing with facts. It is only by placing them within an epistemological framework - a model, a system - that we make sense of them and weave them into the fabric of knowledge, which is far more precious and useful to us.

>> No.1910808

>>1910796

I don't see what other philosophical "models" need to be applied to facts apart from logic to make them whole.

>> No.1910817

>>1910808

Firstly, logic IS a philosophical model.

Secondly, look at biology. Look at the standard taxonomic system we use - the binomial Linnaean one. That's a nomenclature system, which is a type of epistemological framework which we use to sort, categorise, and order our facts and knowledge. The moment you start linking knowledge together you are engaging in epistemology, which is a type of philosophy.

Secondly, say we look at something like chemistry. The periodic table is another form of epistemological framework. It's not "logic" - there's no set of independent premises and conclusion which tell us that Carbon an has atomic number of 6. What we've done is taken a fact (number of protons) and worked that into a framework for describing things (the periodic table). This is all epistemological work and therefore philosophic. Without such a framework, we wouldn't have been able to categorise the knowledge we had about early chemistry; we'd be stuck in the days of alchemy.

>> No.1910833

>>1910725
consider, if you take a mechanistic view of the brain, that when you are happy, X areas of the brain lights up. So brain state X corresponds to a phenomenological experience of being happy.

Now imagine sentient aliens are out their somewhere, they've undergone a different evolutionary path. It has a different biological structure in it's head, cannot possibly achieve brain state X, but can still feel the phenomenological happiness the person can.

It's not to say that the physical and mental processes aren't linked, dependant or whatever, it's just to say that they aren't equivalent.

>> No.1910840

>>1910817

If using logic is considered philosophy I concede that philosophy is useful and relevant.

But if you don't mind I will not call the periodic table and "epistemological work" but rather a logical system derived from information.

>> No.1910841

>>1910764
if a scientific reccomendation tells us the rightness or wrongness of an action, it's dependant on it's intrumentality to a preconceived good or ill

>> No.1910846

Everest and all the rocks of everest are not equivalent either, does not mean everest is itself vague or not made of rocks.

>> No.1910849

Short answer: Not really

Long answer: Most metaphysical projects have failed. Logic increasingly appears imperfect, knotted and potentially falliable at all levels. No one gives enough of a shit about ethics, theology, political philosophy. Cultural theorism and psychoanalysis (focussing on areas that experimental cognitive psychology and neuroscience have not yet gotten to) are still vaguely viable as only Zizek shows, but are more entertaining areas of study than significant.

>> No.1910851

>>1910833

>It has a different biological structure in it's head, cannot possibly achieve brain state X, but can still feel the phenomenological happiness the person can.

Then we assume there is some other physical reaction that causes the feeling of happiness in the alien and try to search for it.

>It's not to say that the physical and mental processes aren't linked, dependant or whatever, it's just to say that they aren't equivalent.

But they are.

>> No.1910853

>>1910808
Not the same Anon.
Think of it this way. Science can tell us that the visible spectrum is a limited portion of a wider electromagnetic spectrum (or something like that. I'm not a scientist). OK, so we now know that Aristotle was incorrect in his theory of vision. But beyond that, what is the significance of this discovery? Well, here is a little dramatization of the problem at hand:

"OK," I would say, "So who cares?"

"What" you would respond, "This is science. Science is serious business."

"You're not helping your case."

"We can use this information to create a theory of optics."

"And?"

"And we can make glasses for people."

"Make glasses for people? Who cares about people?! Working with your hands is for artisans and laborers."

"But if we sell glasses to people, we can help them AND make money."

"Make money? Only gauche merchants care about making money. And if you care about people, give money to a chancery so the monks can pray for their souls."

"Oh boy, I guess the fact that I've discovered how light works is meaningless beyond the fact that I know how light works, huh?"

"Yes. But do you know what could convince me that your theory of light is meaningful?"

"What?"

"Philosophy"

>> No.1910854

>>1910833
>It has a different biological structure in it's head, cannot possibly achieve brain state X, but can still feel the phenomenological happiness the person can.
Why would they? There's no reason they would be able to feel the same kind of happiness as we.

>> No.1910863

>>1910849
>Logic increasingly appears imperfect, knotted and potentially falliable at all levels

this is what continental fluffybunnies actually believe, no wonder they think in loops

>> No.1910865

>>1910853

That went kinda over my head.

What gives information about light meaning? The fact that we can use that information to describe, explain, use and predict light.

>> No.1910871

>>1910865
Ok, but why is this significant? So you know how light works. Big deal. Make the case to me that knowing how light works matters.

>> No.1910876

>>1910851
>Then we assume there is some other physical reaction that causes the feeling of happiness in the alien and try to search for it.
of course

>But they are.
how did you get there

If alien is brain state Y, person is Brain state X, and the mental are physical are not seperate, you've equated two processese to be the same thing

>>1910854
>Why would they?
You would have to commit to the impossibility of any other structure than the human brain and body to feel positive affect. Possible, perhaps, but a hasty assumption. Additionally, this is a hypothetical, so while you are free to question it's possibility, this is about what you would think in case of it's truth. In that case then, something like this would become a condition for you to think that physical and mental processes aren't literally equivalent.

>> No.1910880

>>1910871

Whether it "matters" is a subjective issue of course, but to me it matters because we can use the information to produce technology and form scientific theories. It is also very interesting by itself to me because it makes me think about the inner workings of it whenever I see some queer manifestations of light.

>> No.1910889

>>1910876

You mean if an alien had completely different chemistry in it's brain but felt the exact same thing as a human?

That is an interesting thought but we would have to understand everything there is to know about the brain to begin making theories on that. That is assuming this could even be possible.

>> No.1910890

>>1910863
What's Wittgenstein's conclusion at the end of the Philosophical Investigations? That philosophy's role is to eliminate linguistically all the insoluble problems of metaphysics and all other disciplines of philosophical thought.

He was the only great analytical philosopher. What hope do the others have? Very little. They can go to depths on the intricacies of modal logic but without any point of origin affirmed, either in coherence or foundationalism; what's the point of going any further or of considering logic to have any use beyond the pragmatic?

>> No.1910894

>You would have to commit to the impossibility of any other structure than the human brain and body to feel positive affect. Possible, perhaps, but a hasty assumption. [...]
And now you begin to play on words. This is why I so fucking dislike this kind of arguments. Happiness maybe would be possible in such aliens. But because we use the same word does not mean it is strictly the same thing. It is possible that human happiness and alien happiness share some characteristics due to convergent evolution but it is not possible to know that they involve the same emotion.

>> No.1910896

>>1910889
yeah, it's simply a thought experiment.
There is much more sophisticated writing about mechanistic models of the brain being appropriate or not, and psychology/psychiatry in the scientific image (Ramachandran and Dominic Murphy, who was my lecture for a course on that subject, have written fairly substantially on the subject) so if it interests you I reccomend them.

>> No.1910897

>>1910880
OK, but why is it important to develop new technologies and new scientific theories?

>> No.1910901

>>1910894
I don't mean to confuse you but the point of the hypothetical is that they are the same thing, not by name.
It's not a question of possibly knowing but if it's possible at all, and what you would have to think of phsyicalist sorts of models if it were true. It may well not be, but it's a useful way of thinking of appropriate criteria and guaging intuitive reactions

>> No.1910906

>>1910897

To deepen our understanding of the world and to better our "quality of life". Or to extend our lifespan. Also, cool gadgets. There are tons and tons of uses for it.

This is not to say how it OUGHT to be in any objective manner, it is just an exercise I see as useful and interesting and best for all mankind. If I had been born in the jungles of Papua New-Guinea I probably would think such exercises are extraneous.

>> No.1910908

>>1910901
This is a thought experiment as silly as Laplace's demon though.

>> No.1910909

>>1910890

>without any point of origin affirmed

no.
the axioms are there...you just have to recognize them

>> No.1910917

understanding an understanding without repetition or simple external modeling (various behavioralism and functionalism) involves translation between cognitive models(what you guys call "abstraction" is one kind). it's a legitimate area of study, although insofar as the layperson is concerned, philosophy is about finding the correct self representation, a matter of fact. a scientific study would reveal that to be a matter of choice rather than of force.

>> No.1910919

>>1910908
could you be more specific

>> No.1910925

>>1910906
>If I had been born in the jungles of Papua New-Guinea I probably would think such exercises are extraneous.
Very perceptive. So perhaps you could even say that, yes, science can describe the world, but describing the world, per se, is a meaningless errand unless you have a philosophic system that justifies a scientific explanation of the world. Now you see why philosophy is important?

>> No.1910932

>>1910909
(Not the same Anon) And what justifies an axiom? Axioms are by definition self-justifying, not based on anything objective.

>> No.1910936
File: 140 KB, 755x1170, klee_dream-city.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910936

you can be whatever, but the world will take care of itself. don't think otherwise and you will be fine in your model building. every student of logic must also study the world.

>> No.1910944

>>1910925

I'm trying to trace back to what exactly makes me interested in how things work so that I could compare it to the mindset of one born in the jungle, but it's proving difficult. Obviously it's a cultural thing, deep-set in people.

I guess my problem with this whole thing is that sometimes it feels like the definition of "philosophy" accounts for all manner of thinking by humans so of course it's relevant today. You could say I have a "philosophic system" just as the people in the jungle have their own philosophic system. The thing is these systems are passed down to us without much effort on our part and without even knowing they're philosophic systems. But yes, philosophy is important if it is required for people to form these beliefs.

>> No.1910949

because it must be before one's time if one is not an upper class white boy disproving metaphysics in the late 19th - 20th century right

>> No.1910954

philosophy will be relevant whether you want it to be or not. it helps govern our politics, our quality of life. our foreign policy. social norms. values. how our educational institutions work and so much more.

you can ignore philosophy but it will continue to forever happen around you.

sage for shit thread.

>> No.1910969

>>1910944
Ah, you have learned much. I think though what makes Western thought different from traditional cultures is the degree of scrutiny we subject ourselves to. If we didn't live in a Western culture, you could have said, "Well, the elders of the tribe say that science is the way of our people" and that would be good enough. But you had to scrutinized just WHY science is important and came to some interesting conclusions. This is not to say that other cultures don't change over time, just that Western thought tends to be more systematic and iconoclastic than non-Western cultures.

>> No.1910974

yea but you learn that in 1st grade. everywhere.

>> No.1910984

>>1910974
Eh? You talk me?
I would have to disagree though. As evidence, I would point to just about every theist v. atheist debate here across the various boards of 4chan. On the whole, the theists have better arguments because they are used to justifying their beliefs to a skeptical audience. And on the whole, the atheists tend to be weaker debaters because in a way scientific materialism is the unexamined, self-justifying norm of our society.

>> No.1910986

How can Philosophy possibly be irrelevant?
That's like saying 'Is behaviour relevant'?

It's a way of life. Everybody has a philosophy on their lives or principles. People that choose 'not to believe in philosophy'? That's a philosophy!

>> No.1910992

>>1910984
not really. science has gotten itself from one pole of metaphysics to another quite fine without the help of philosophers. they just used a magnifying glass.

the progress of science is not guided by or initiated by a philosophical decision over action at a distance or validity of induction. rather, philosophers who like to build sand castles have been playing catchup more often than not.

>> No.1910994

>>1910974

See kids, this is the kind of superiority complex I keep talking about on this board.

Not progressive, not informative, not helpful in anyway, just a way for the tripfag to express that he considers himself superior.

>> No.1911002

>>1910992
Seriously, do we have to run through this thought experiment again?

Ok, so ignoring the fact that scientists were first known as natural philosophers, just why is science so important anyway? Please justify the importance of science.

>> No.1911005

>>1911002
because the world is important silly.

>> No.1911007

>>1911002
People that believe in science are exactly the same as people that are religious, they just don't know it.

Both are looking to disprove somebody else or to affirm their beliefs to feel some sort of comfort in thinking they know the 'truth'.

When really, we could all be figments of somebody's imagination.

>> No.1911011

>>1911002
you are on it dumb fuck

>> No.1911013

>>1911007

Are you fucking serious?

>> No.1911023
File: 86 KB, 843x900, 2369d8ab799ef781e4ea7a2d5ae788d9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911023

>>1911005
Why is the world important? Shouldn't we understand our own hearts first? Or consider this: back when I was in high school, I took courses in both geology and calculus, and I found calculus much more elegant and magnificent to contemplate. Why shouldn't pure, abstract mathematics be valued more than the dirty, transient, temporal world?

>> No.1911026

>>1910984
>And on the whole, the atheists tend to be weaker debaters because in a way scientific materialism is the unexamined, self-justifying norm of our society
>scientific materialism is the unexamined, self-justifying norm of our society
This all the way. It never fails to amaze me how this can go unnoticed by so many people.

>> No.1911028

We already know that we are unimportant in the grand scheme of the Universe, yet we continue to worry about money, and put governments into power that abuse our rights and take away our rights in life.

Humans are a disgusting race

>> No.1911029

>>1911023
who said you must learn about the world by its models.

>> No.1911030
File: 106 KB, 450x675, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911030

>>1911011
I'm also on your mom, but I don't need to know shit about her when I'm eventually just going to drop her off on the corner I picked her up from.

>> No.1911035
File: 107 KB, 800x821, 4c616cc17ff2220b62e379311b00d30d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911035

>>1911029
Who says we shouldn't?

>> No.1911041

>>1911035
i wasn't implying a distinction b/w models and worlds.

>> No.1911044

>>1911029
>who said you must learn about the world by its models.
>.
Tell the doctor he's not my real mom

>> No.1911054

>>1911041
What ARE you trying to say?

>> No.1911065

>>1911054
i am saying understanding science as just another model does not revoke its privileged status.

>> No.1911067

Analytic philosophy is still relevant, yes.

>> No.1911069
File: 699 KB, 800x544, 1303017723851.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911069

>>1911065
But why privilege it in the first place?

>> No.1911072

science's edge is in clear reference and attachment to the world, not in the metaphysics of its models.

SEE eg
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/

scientific realism vs structural realism

>> No.1911076

>>1911026
>>1910984

You seem to be implying that because there are other models they are automatically as important and as deserving of respect as scientific materialism.

I'd love to see one of these debates where the atheists are weak debaters because of this reason you state, should be a good laugh.

>> No.1911077

>>1911065

The only hard scientists who make any difference to the world are the guys who develop flesh-searing chemical weapons for Uncle Sam. The rest just sit around eating cookies, waiting on a particularly tubular fart.

>> No.1911079

say you have two kids. one is out in the field looking and studying stuff and figuring out how things worked, the other giggles every time his retarded friend says something that can be construed in a funny way. which one is more privileged in their model of the world

>> No.1911080

>>1911076

I'd love to see a debate where halfway through the other guy just stabs you because that's reality.

>> No.1911082

>>1911079

The latter, because the former ends up working for him.

>> No.1911083

>>1911077
that's retarded.

>> No.1911086

>>1911083

If it was up to me the other guys would matter, but they don't.

>> No.1911088

>>1911077

You're forgetting the guys who weaponize uranium for the Arab states.

>> No.1911092

>>1911072
>science's edge is in clear reference and attachment to the world, not in the metaphysics of its models.

Well, there are parts of philosophy which have "clear reference and attachment to the world", so what separates them except from the "metaphysics of their models".

>> No.1911093

>>1911092
what do you mean.

>> No.1911095

>>1911088

I wasn't literally saying only US military scientists need apply - every country has its chemists. But those are the guys whose input is decisive.

>> No.1911096

>>1911092
if you are talking about sense modalities then the answer is the same as why smell and sight are separated, but not because of any metaphysical concerns.

>> No.1911097

Only scientists can plumb my bathroom - philosophy can't do that.

>> No.1911102

>>1911076
See this:
>>1910648

>> No.1911103

Hard scientists lack the will. They serve another's purpose. Philosophy is for a different order of man.

>> No.1911106

>>1911076
And YOU seem to be saying that there are epistemological hierarchies, where science is automatically on top in every situation. That's absurd.

>> No.1911111

hard scientists are indentured servants. the only one ever to attain a modicum of real power was elena ceasescu, and she was in reality a novice.

>> No.1911112

>>1911103

Lack what "will"?

>> No.1911114

>>1911093
>>1911096
Well what do you mean by "clear reference and attachment to the world" and what about this gives science the "edge" that it has.

>> No.1911115

>>1911112

The will to power.

>> No.1911116
File: 9 KB, 233x251, nietzsche_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911116

>>1911112
The Will to Power

I'll just go back to lurking now

>> No.1911118

>>1911106

No it's not "automatically" on top of anything. It's on top because it is the most logical.

And of course there is hierarchy. Saying every idea is equally sound is fucking ridiculous.

>> No.1911119

>>1911115
>>1911116

What does that mean?

>> No.1911120

>>1911119

Read philosophy and find out.

>> No.1911124

>>1911120

Cop out answer. Just tell me. If you understand the concept properly you should be able to explain it with ease.

>> No.1911129

>>1911124
have you considered the possibility that there exist some people on the planet who don't give a shit about what you want to know and don't want to wipe your beautiful, unique, and curious ass for you?

>> No.1911131

>>1911124

No, you haven't earned it. Read, slave.

>> No.1911136
File: 6 KB, 200x200, 50263_76739027622_7799566_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911136

>>1911118
You're talking in circles here.
>what is most logical is best
>science is the most logical
>therefore science is the best.
Please explain to me what you mean by logical. And what about my example of calculus. It has a logic all its own. It is elegant and internally consistent. Why would you privilege science over calculus when both are logical?

>> No.1911144

>>1911114
bleh

>> No.1911149

>>1911124

Even if we do tell you, you'll try to rebuke it like the clueless pissed-off "scienticist" you are: think the way christian creationists would try to disprove evolution. Not worth it. We keep it for knowledgeable people who respect our fields.

>> No.1911152

>>1911129

That kind of useless answer would never fly in a debate.

>>1911131

I will as I seem to have no choice.

>> No.1911155

>>1911149

If you're as knowledgeable as you claim you can easily destroy my silly rebuke.

>> No.1911158

>>1911152

Good. Enjoy.

>> No.1911160

>>1911136

>Please explain to me what you mean by logical.

Useless exercise. You know what logical means.

>Why would you privilege science over calculus when both are logical?

Science and calculus aren't models that disagree with each other, which is what we're talking about.

>> No.1911161

>>1911114
i mean the subject of scientific contention is over the world and not merely over representations. of course, a problem that arises in science the fields of study may later be found to be simply a problem about representation, but the distinction stands.

>> No.1911164

>>1911155

Probably, like any good scientist would rebuke a creationist argument, resulting in the creationist coming back everytime with an even sillier, cluless argument, not willing to educate themselves in the end. The debate finally end as the discussion derails and Hitler gets mentionned.

Not worth it, as I said

>> No.1911165

>>1911152
>That kind of useless answer would never fly in a debate.
But this isn't a debate. Since when is you asking someone to explain something to you a debate

>> No.1911168

>>1910496
I know it. you mad?

>> No.1911171

>>1911155
Educated people debate only educated people. Teaching something to somebody trying to debate you is just as stupid as unproductive.

>> No.1911172

>>1911165
since he's not a fucking lamb and wishes to use REFLECTION

>> No.1911173

>>1911161
>the subject of scientific contention is over the world and not merely over representations
But don't you agree we merely have access to the world through our own linguistic representations?

>> No.1911176

>>1911173
well, necessity of representation is a problem of communication not one of metaphysics

>> No.1911179

So exactly which one of Nietchzhe's books explains "the will to power"?

Also I may be completely offbase but from the short descriptions I read this "will to power" sounds exactly like just a different way of saying "willpower".

>> No.1911180
File: 21 KB, 241x316, T. H. Huxley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911180

"The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions." - T. H. Huxley

I believe what T. H. Huxley said, and I think it not only illustrates the job of science but also the necessity of philosophy. We as humans must live with the unknown - not to mention the wealth of emotions and thoughts we experience about death, love, etc. Furthermore, we must always consider the fact that we may be wrong about certain things. I could go on and on: trust, skepticism, etc. All this boils down to one thing: Philosophy helps us explore big questions and examine our lives - a venture that remains and will remain more relevant than anything else in our lives.

...IMHO

>> No.1911182

>>1911173
>have access to the world
this here is just a feature of one model of "we and the world" and at this time if you walked into a tree and hit your head you'll sort of be enlightened about it all. try it

>> No.1911187

>>1911180

The acknowledgment that we could be wrong about everything is inherent in science.

>> No.1911189

>>1911176
It's a problem of accessing information. We, as humans now, have no way to directly acknowledge the nature of phenomena. Our perception is filtered and shaped by our language, and so is the science we make through our perception. Science is, indeed, dealing with representations and not with 'the world' as you claim it.

>> No.1911194

>>1911189
again i never implied any kind of material distinction. sure, study models, but models of the world. don't lose that part.

>> No.1911197

put it in another way, the model vs world distinction is in the observer not the performer. the philosopher, not the scientist

>> No.1911200
File: 175 KB, 438x600, so_i_became_a_flutterpony_by_tocupine-d3a1cg8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911200

>>1911160
No, we're talking about means and ways of understanding the world, and you shifting your position from 1) explicitly giving science the privileged position in an epistemological hierarchy to you arguing that 2) there are different types of "logic" (e.g. "scientific" logic and "mathematical" logic), which don't overlap each other. Now, these are two very different positions.

Can we agree, then, that the scientific materialist logic of the hard sciences and the abstract mathematical logic of calculus are two very different things?

If you agree with this statement, you'd have to re-evaluate your assertion that science is at the top of the epistemological hierarchy since A) you cannot compare dissimilar things, or if you'd like, you can B) maintain your assertion that the logic of science is superior to the logic of calculus (in which case you would have to provide compelling criteria for such a position). So what is it?

>> No.1911202

>>1911179
None in particular: Nietzsche writes his books in a very peculiar way, namely aphorisms and short essays. His notion of will to power is found in his mature and later works, starting with Beyond Good and Evil onward.

But the guy who mentionned the will to power in this thread is just stupid. Not many philosophers today are fapping to Nietzsche's idea. Anybody quoting Nietzsche in a serious discussion is more likely to be some pseudo-intellectual teenager who don't understand him anyhow. To understand him properly (including the will to power), one has to have thorough knowledge of most that came before him: the presocratics, Plato, german idealism, Spinoza in particular. Years and years of study just to fully appreciate the historical importance of Nietzsche.

How many know that Nietzsche stole his idea of the will to power from Spinoza (see his conatus) and Schopenhauer?

>> No.1911203
File: 123 KB, 506x775, noble-quran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911203

>>1910535

i state no such thing

>> No.1911205

>>1910507
>science can explain morality and ethics
Get out of here

>> No.1911207
File: 42 KB, 450x337, don't wanna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911207

whatever silly distinction you hold between science and maths i have no idea and i don't want to spend time to find out. bai bai

>> No.1911211

>>1911187
I know. My point was that our lack of certainty and omniscience leaves a need for philosophical exploration.

>> No.1911213

>>1911211
not really. it just means shit happens.

that too is a philosophical explanation though, but it INCLUDES rather than contradicts the "not really."

>> No.1911214

>>1911194
>>1911197
>>1911207
I merely jumped in in the discussion in the last two posts you replied to. My point is merely that science doesn't hold the high ground epistemologically, at least not for the reasons you stated.

>> No.1911215

>>1911200

>Can we agree, then, that the scientific materialist logic of the hard sciences and the abstract mathematical logic of calculus are two very different things?

No, they're the same.

>B) maintain your assertion that the logic of science is superior to the logic of calculus

I never made such claim.

>> No.1911217

>>1911214

there are several standards depending on what level of representation we operate at.

the best theories of science understood as their content are determined within science, and outside of it, well, science is science. voodoo is voodoo. use some common sense this is honestly not very complicated.

>> No.1911226

>>1911217
So science is on top of the epistemological hierarchy from the point of view of science. Is that what your saying? Well, Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, that's brilliant!

>> No.1911234

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
— Richard P. Feynman

>> No.1911238
File: 19 KB, 320x240, godel looking at you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911238

>>1911226
go kill yourself

>> No.1911243

"It is clear, then, that the idea of a fixed method, or of a fixed theory of rationality, rests on too naive a view of man and his social surroundings. To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts, their craving for intellectual security in the form of clarity, precision, 'objectivity', 'truth', it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes."

— Paul K. Feyerabend

>> No.1911245

>>1911234
Feynman confirmed for avian lifeform

>> No.1911248

>>1911238
<3

polite sage, I've already gotten my kicks from this thread

>> No.1911254
File: 128 KB, 900x1429, I__m_a_punk_rock_by_Izcalli2006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1911254

>>1911215
No, they are different. Calculus rests upon certain axiomatic assumptions that are internally coherent. It is a recursive language. Crudely speaking, science tries to measure and quantify the world. It is a descriptive language. The two have very different missions and rely on two totally different (though not contradictory) forms of logic. They are not the same. Yet, you say you privilege science of calculus. Why?

And yes, you argue that science should be at the top of the epistemological food chain. You say it right here: "No [science is] not "automatically" on top of anything. It's on top because it is the most logical. And of course there is hierarchy. Saying every idea is equally sound is fucking ridiculous."

Think of it this way. Either you are saying, "Well, apples (science) and oranges (calculus) are two different things" which would mean you would have to retract your statement that science is the best, or you would have to say, "Apples (science) and oranges (calculus) are different, but I still like apples better because ..." Which is it?

>> No.1911256

>>1911248
:/

>> No.1911257

>>1911226
No no no. He is saying: science is the way, the truth and the light. You simply must have faith, for one must believe to see.

>> No.1911260

>>1911243

Science doesn't postulate "truth".

>>1911254

Is calculus an epistemological model?

Also there is only one logic, I don't know what you mean by different logics.

>> No.1911264

>>1911257
11/10

>> No.1911266

>Also there is only one logic

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic

>> No.1911270

>>1911266
those are extensions or attempts at different kinds of formalizing modeling. the 'different logic' statement is ambiguous

>> No.1911286

>>1911260
Again, given that different logics exist, do you maintain the supremacy of scientific materialism (if so why) or do you concede that there are a multiplicity of logics, which cannot be placed into a hierarchy?

>> No.1911307

>>1911286

There is only one logic.

>> No.1911310

>>1911260

If it doesn't postulate truth then why should it be privileged?

>> No.1911332

>>1910648

Is this nigger fucking serious?

He's saying "deep down you know rape is objectively wrong" as proof that God exists.

>> No.1911853

>>1911310
That's a good question.

>> No.1911856

>>1911332
hehe, that debate is hilarious. Yeah, Dr. Craig's arguments aren't overwhelming, yet when Hitchen's doesn't even bother to make a counter-argument, then he still kinda loses the debate.

>> No.1911895

>>1911856

It seems to me Hitchens is just bad at debating. He stutters and fidgets all over the place instead of thinking everything through before saying it.

>> No.1911914

No, philosophy is dead and has been for a long time.

Deal. With. It. Philosophy is useless.

>> No.1911936

Fuck everybody who thinks philosophy is useless, meaningless, a waste of time and other silly things like that.

"Philosophy is not in a state of external reflection on other domains, but in a state of active and internal alliance with them, and it is neither more abstract nor more difficult." (Deleuze)

>> No.1911937

>>1911936

Lol. Philosophy summed up in one post:

"Screw what everybody else thinks.

"[insert random, pointless quote here so that I can seem intellectual]""

>> No.1911967

There need to be a purgatory for those too dumb for science and too pretentious for religion, and philosophy's it.

>> No.1912031
File: 39 KB, 400x264, Short Bus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1912031

>>1911967

>> No.1912356

>>1911914

That's what they said in the 5th century AD. The Bible [or science] has all the answers, they said. Then *poof*, Dark Ages till the late 13th century or so. Meanwhile, there has been a Golden Age in the Middle-East, as Plato's Academy has been shut down by Justinian, leading all the philosophers (Simplicius, ect...) out of Greece into Persia, carrrying "useless" scrolls of "cloud shoveling" on their back.

But seriously, ethics and political philosophy are alive and well. Metaphysics and epistemology slowed down a little, but ups and downs are normal.

>> No.1912532

Jesus christ this thread is so lulzy. I was laughing out loud at most of the posts here.
and the pony reaction images next to the philosophical discussions were the icing on the cake.

>> No.1912643
File: 604 KB, 702x599, bcfa5d90c508e328a920ba1d8f47243d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1912643

>>1911307
I guess we're kind of arguing in circles here, but it's worth noting certain things.
1. You argue that there is only one logic, though we Anons have demonstrated that there are indeed different forms of logic, different ways of knowing and understanding the world.
2. Even though you claim that there is only one type of logic, you refuse to even give a cursory definition of this logic. From what I can gather from your disparate statements, this logic A) is hierarchical and that B) at the top of this hierarchy is science. (Though science being at the top of a hierarchy of logics, when there is only one type of logic doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but maybe I'm just not being logical here).
3. Judging from these criteria, I assume that your "logic" is some manner of empiricism. Yet, I have demonstrated that empiricism (that is what is strictly observable) is not the only way of knowing the world. There is also abstract, mathematical logic. And no, mathematical logic and empiricism are not identical, for there are things in mathematical logic that are not observable in the natural world (e.g. infinite series [since infinity does not exist in a finite world] or imaginary numbers [I've never seen a negative 2 in nature]).

>> No.1912646 [DELETED] 
File: 185 KB, 693x489, 1303569222113.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1912646

>>19126434.

Indeed, there are points even where science breaks down, most notably at the highest levels of theoretical physics. Theoretical physicists have created models of how the universe might function. I won't pretend I understand these models, but from what I can gather, these models have an internal logic all their own, but we lack the technology to test which (if any) hypothesis is correct. In other words, at the highest levels of physics, the scientific method breaks down, and theoretical physicists can only make non-empirically observable conjectures about the nature of the universe. Because they cannot use the scientific method to test their theories, properly speaking, these physicists aren't scientists. You know what they are?
{spoiler]Philosophers![/spoiler].

So really, you don't have a leg to stand on. My whole point is that the universe is very complex, and claiming that there is only one form of logic which science is best suited to arbiter is really quite absurd.

Oh yeah, and ponys.

>> No.1912656
File: 1.35 MB, 379x579, oie_oie_overlay.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1912656

>>1912643

Indeed, there are points even where science breaks down, most notably at the highest levels of theoretical physics. Theoretical physicists have created models of how the universe might function. I won't pretend I understand these models, but from what I can gather, these models have an internal logic all their own, but we lack the technology to test which (if any) hypothesis is correct. In other words, at the highest levels of physics, the scientific method breaks down, and theoretical physicists can only make non-empirically observable conjectures about the nature of the universe. Because they cannot use the scientific method to test their theories, properly speaking, these physicists aren't technically scientists. You know what they are?
Philosophers!.

So really, you don't have a leg to stand on. My whole point is that the universe is very complex, and claiming that there is only one form of logic which science is best suited to arbiter is really quite absurd.

Oh yeah, and ponys.

>> No.1912660

>>1911202

No I'm not. Why do you despise me for speaking a word for order?

>> No.1912705

people are thinking philosophy is only about explaining the world... this is just one part of it (metaphysics)... it still have Aesthetics, Ethic, Epistemology and others. I dont think philosophy is dying but its getting limited as new sciences are born from it. Its the natural course: Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry and all sciences we know today were born from philosophy.. Of course, this limits philosophy a bit... a philosopher cant argue about the existence or not of movement as this is now physics work. Same thing happens today with psychology and sociology...
Thats why I believe philosophy is not a science... its somehow something bigger. As the guy on Op's pic said: "Well, my art of midwifery is in most respects like theirs; but differs, in that I attend humans and not only women; and look after their souls
when they are in labour, and not after their bodies

>> No.1912718

>>1912705

No, philosophy is not getting more limited - more minds are hitting it and failing, birds on windshield.

>> No.1912728

>>1912705
It makes more sense if you think of it as an art than as a science. Systematic philosophy's been dead for 200 years anyway. People miss this because contemporary philosophers (analytic and continental) make the "modern art" of their profession - boring, overly obscure, and impenetrable to almost everyone who isn't also professionally trained.

>> No.1912733

>>1912718
i think you dont understood... what i meant was, or example, a philosopher cant do a research about ethics in various cultures to prove Socrates argument of ethic, this is now a job for sociologist... understood? (altough maybe I also misunderstood you)

>> No.1913082

>>1912705
You're on to something OP. Because of the intense training that the heir to philosophy (e.g. scientists, sociologists, mathematicians, etc.) have to undergo, lots of times they are too parochial and specialized to make any sense to the average person. Maybe philosophers should try to be public intellectuals, like Zizek or Chomsky, and try to speak about things that concern the quality of people's lives. Just a thought.

>> No.1913104

>>1912705
what are your labors?

>> No.1913114

What has metaphysics told us that physics hasn't?

>> No.1913154

>>1913114

Metaphysics is not and never has been a replacement for physics. Metaphysics typically addresses questions such as, "is existence necessary?" which obviously physics would not be capable of answering. To answer your question of what metaphysics has given us: worldviews.

>> No.1913163

>>1913114
Metaphysics made people hunger to know ontological reality. it's important to remember that not all cultures share this desire. And like I've said elsewhere, theoretical physicists really are the heirs to the metaphysical philosophers, since they conjecture about the nature of reality in ways that are not empirically observable ... yet.