/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19125044]

https://youtu.be/PgJoLw-wjmY

[Anonymous No.19125056]

>>19125044
Sage because obvious bait

[Anonymous No.19125062]

>>19125044
this is insulting my intelligence. I made it one minute in.

[Anonymous No.19125077]

>Religion is not the problem. Religion is merely a symptom. The real problem is a pervasive human tendency for making up unjustifiable beliefs and then clinging to them as if they were pure, inerrant truth. We cannot just reason people out of their faith because reason never played any part in their beliefs to begin with. The only way to free people from the demons of faith and superstition is to overhaul their entire sense of epistemology. Do not attack the beliefs. Attack the justification, and the rest will follow.

lmao

[Anonymous No.19125088]

[Anonymous No.19125110]

>>19125088
>>19125077
>>19125062
>>19125056
Stay mad christfags

[Anonymous No.19125137]

You'd have to be a midwit to be so confident in your own retardation as to script, record, edit and post this video.

[Anonymous No.19125144]

>lack of consensus = bad because it is
>scientists solved morality
>practical use is the only thing that matters because it just is bro trust me
you cannot be serious

[Anonymous No.19125146]

>>19125137
You're just mad because he's s after than you'll ever be

[Anonymous No.19125215]

>>19125044
My hot take is that if the answer was actually obtainable there wouldn't be disagreement, so the presence of disagreement in philosophy is itself a powerful argument for philosophical skepticism.

[Anonymous No.19125279]

>>19125044
Filtered

[Anonymous No.19125355]

>>19125215
Well i disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.19125356]

>>19125044
These people are allowed to vote

[Anonymous No.19125395]

>>19125044
Analytical philosophy was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.19125419]

This guy is right. Anything else is cope.

[Anonymous No.19125452]

>>19125355
great. in disagreeing you still prove his point.
>>19125395
yes
>>19125356
yes
>>19125279
yup

>>19125044
The video is dangerously midwitty, which is just shallow. I like to judge, often times, the entertainer, figure by their audience. Just read the comment of people agreeing and check the vocabulary they use. Everything is just a thing. Using the same word thrice in a non logical context is - bad at best? and pathetic when they're arrogant enough to slip into ignorance. Can things not be matters, affairs, a said, named thing; no, it's all just the most practical 'thing' and 'things'. Worse yet, those people should know better and are native English speakers from the US.

It seems to me that this is all because of some grudge stemming from a personal matter affecting the youtuber. Why else would you produce a video, disagreeing with something actively? There is little to no reason beyond mere media opportunism otherwise for him to seethe, complain, etc.

[Anonymous No.19125483]

>>19125452
It’s midwittery for sure, but people have been advancing the same arguments against philosophy since Thales fell into a well. No one who would have seriously studied philosophy would have been persuaded by this video, and who cares what they think?

[Anonymous No.19125497]

>>19125452
In disagreeing I refute your point

[Anonymous No.19125504]

>why won't the structure of every field of knowledge conform to this one field i am familiar with
this is what happens when you allow retards to go to college

[Anonymous No.19125513]

>>19125452
>Why else would you produce a video, disagreeing with something actively? There is little to no reason beyond mere media opportunism otherwise for him to seethe, complain, etc.
That's because he knows the philosophers are too busy pissing themselves with fear to respond
It's like open carrying a M-16 at Starbucks, instant badass

[Anonymous No.19125528]

>>19125088
I love who he picked as a representation of scientists. It alone says more than enough about the video as a whole.

[Anonymous No.19125572]

> Thus, in the eyes of classical theism, Thomas Aquinas is officially the greatest super-genius who ever walked the Earth [1,2,3,4,5]. It’s almost cultish how much they adore the guy, and it reminds of how Mormons tend to think of Joseph Smith [6].

Yeah, this is kind of stupid. I say this as an atheist. Just look at not even the semantics. He cites something when expressing his own opinion. It reminds *me*...
How
I can't believe this guy probably has a BA. I can't.

[Anonymous No.19125602]

>>19125528
And what he thinks modern philosophers obsess over. This guy studied two semesters, switched to some STEM stuff, but still 'pursued' philosophy as a hobby.
Does he not realize that these people are just trying to appease the system which dislikes them, that you can write a paper about something because it seemed interesting enough and you yourself had a point to make about it? A philosopher can write something about logic and then pursue Hegel, and then do something linguistic or philological. If you have the expertise then it's a non issue.

[Anonymous No.19125651]

>>19125044
this is like ben shapiro/vaush tier thought

[Anonymous No.19125694]

Is he calling Aquinas incoherent?

[Anonymous No.19125706]

>>19125077
Science is itself founded on faith. It's funny when people attack religion in the name of science because it is founded on faith, because it displays their own ignorance with respect to the very thing they are arguing in the name of.

[Anonymous No.19125708]

>>19125602
Yeah. He took more seriously the adds on the faculty's website about "critical thinking" than any actual philosophy. Those are the people who make it impossible to negate as a whole the NPC thing.

[Anonymous No.19125938]

>>19125044
I understand where he's coming from. As a criticism of modern Academic Philosophy, some of it is valid. However, he commits an error in conflating modern Academic Philosophy with the whole of Academic Philosophy, or even Philosophy as a discipline. This practice of "Philosophy education = History of Philosophy" is pretty recent; Before that, you studied and contributed to specific schools of thought. But even then, most philosophers now choose a specialty at some point, we just study a wider swathe of things than before.

Essentially, the crux here is that if one specific school of thought is "correct", we still won't know about it. Philosophy doesn't produce tangible results like advancements in Physics or Math: It's all theory. You can object to that - "But wait, Math is theory as well!" - But the difference is we designed Math to work the way it does. Math doesn't actually tell us about the universe, it's merely a framework to help us describe and predict the physical world with quantities. So it is literally a method of prediction, there is absolutely no "why" involved, just a "how", and a shallow "how" rather than a deep one. Imagine if the problem of predicting the natural world were so incredibly difficult that we had dozens of widely diverging schools of thought just trying to lay a foundation for it. Well, that's Philosophy.

And the irony is that Math is not even the shining example of a consistent system this guy hails it to be, just look at Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It has holes in it just like our major philosophy theories. So why do people all tip their fedora at physics and math, and scorn philosophy? Simple: Philosophy doesn't create rockets, or nuclear combustion, or air planes. The only reason people give a shit about Math is because it gives us stuff like Bernoulli's Principle or Navier-Stokes Equations now and then which have practical applications. Ask a pure math researcher with no prospects of creating anything "useful" how much funding his research receives: It's not a lot. In practical terms, he might as well be a philosopher.

Do you get it now? It's not about Math or Physics being right. It never was. It's about doing impressive stuff with your results so everyone can go WOW and exclaim that it is right. Philosophy cannot do that, so 99% of humans will never care.

[Anonymous No.19126004]

>>19125694
Yes. What are you going to do about it??

[Anonymous No.19126020]

I wonder how people like this can answer the simple question: why? In the guise of critical thinking and skepticism, they demand the thinking cease and you stop being skeptical of certain things and stop asking for reasons why.
This is the cave. The question is not what it """does for the world""" (like pollute it with plastics and proliferate nuclear weapons), but what has it done to yourself?

[Anonymous No.19126138]

>>19125044
Isn't one the key tenants of philosophy that "true" knowledge can never be attained? All information attained, in effect, is white noise that requires an epistemology to decrypt; much like changing the frequency on a radio - no? In turn, all truth and logic is dependent on what you know, and is subject to how you interpret the knowledge obtained. If no empiricism were applied, you would not have any field studies or a/b testing; conversely, no rationalism would mean no theory crafting of an sort. How could anyone come to consensus on either or if both are widely used in the realms of science; they are both equally applicable, and often synergistic.

Because we humans lack omnipotence, deprived full cognition and sense perception, you'll never could to a consensus as to what is "true". I'd argue the purpose of philosophy is not to explore the truth, but rather the limits of the human condition, and attempt to reconcile those limitation.

Have no skin in this game, but felt inclined to strongman a counter argument.