/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22627212]

In math and science there is progress and answers.

In philosophy there is 2500 years of intellectual masturbation and nothing more

[Anonymous No.22627325]

>>22627212
Ecce Homo could quite possibly be the most masterbatory book ever written.

[Anonymous No.22627390]

>>22627212
The answer of philosophy is that everyone should commit suicide

[Anonymous No.22627392]

>>22627212
Just the same as with novels and self-help books. Curious hmmmm

[Cult of Passion No.22627401]

>>22627392
Nah, the thing about self help is you actually have to...

[Anonymous No.22627424]

>>22627212
Only someone who’s never seriously engaged with philosophy would say this. I know the perfect philosopher and the perfect book which would enlighten you on this subject assuming you had the intelligence to comprehend it but I shall not share it with you on account of your immodest scientism. No point tossing pearls to pigs.

[Anonymous No.22627466]

>>22627212
Underage b8

[Anonymous No.22627471]

philosophy is essential to science and culture in ways you don't understand. it is a culture's philosophy that sets the stage whether there will be a scientific flourishing or for what political system one would be ruled by.

think about how the enlightenment eroded the justification of monarchical systems until what few remain have little to no power. the philosophical justification that held them up changed form.

[Anonymous No.22627480]

>>22627212
this is true
descartes was a disaster for the split between science and philosophy

[Anonymous No.22627494]

>>22627212
You might find this book interesting. It's essentially about how pragmatism is inherently less limiting than idealism but in the perspective of buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22627538]

>>22627471
We were a thousand times better off in the monarchy, democracy is satanism in disguise

[Anonymous No.22627640]

>>22627212
Math is philosophy

[Anonymous No.22627644]

>>22627212
I don't know why people still bother with philosophy when Nagarjuna already refuted all philosophical positions

[Anonymous No.22627656]

>>22627212
math and science have gotten us precisely nowhere as far as how we should organize ourselves as human beings, or how we should live. Progress is an illusion and there are no answers, least of all without questions. If you picked up a history (or dare I say it, philosophy) book once in a while you might have picked up on that.

[Anonymous No.22627658]

>>22627538
lol

[Anonymous No.22627877]

>>22627424
>scientism
Based.

[Anonymous No.22627897]

>>22627644
Nagarjuna just copied Pyrrhonism while adding a Buddhist garnish to his nihilistic sophistry.

[Anonymous No.22628078]

>>22627538
you're not unique or edgy when you say this. society is crammed full of people eager to crawl under a boot.

[Anonymous No.22628124]

>>22627212
YOU FUCKING RETARD YOUR VERY IDEA OF PROGRESS WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY PHILOSOPHY ON A SILVER PLATTER AND YOU HAVE THE FUCKING GALL TO ACT LIKE IT JUST APPEARED TO MODERN SCIENTISTS ONE DAY WHILE THEY WERE LOOKING THROUGH A MICROSCOPE AAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCK OFF TO REDDIT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.22628377]

>>22627480
Descartes was the basedest. He solved the mind body problem.

[Anonymous No.22628663]

>>22627212

[Anonymous No.22628689]

>>22627212
All science is posited on philosophy. In fact it is really a method philosophy. The Greeks did not distinguish between the two.

[Anonymous No.22628823]

>>22628689

you don't really need evidence and experimentation in philosophy, which is the whole basis of science.

[Anonymous No.22628826]

>>22627212
And look where math and science progress got us

[Anonymous No.22628838]

>>22627212
Without philosophy, science and mathematics would simply be reality without an observer. A planet without life. What's the point of an amusement park if there's no one to enjoy the rides?

[Anonymous No.22628950]

>>22628689
>in the past some philosophers had (uneducated) opinions about science
>therefore my infantile "what if reality doesn't real" platitudes are just as rigorous as relativistic astrothermodynamics
Why do philosocucks always commit intellectual property theft?

[Anonymous No.22628954]

>>22628838
Show me one thing philosophy added to science. I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.22628959]

>>22628954
reread what I wrote, and tell me what you think it meant

[Anonymous No.22628962]

>>22628959
You posted nonsense. Enjoyment has nothing to do with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22628967]

>>22628962
yeah, you're right

[Anonymous No.22628983]

>>22628962
you should probably get checked for autism

[Anonymous No.22628988]

>>22628983
I got checked. I am officially certified non-autistic.

[Anonymous No.22628989]

>>22628826
I think industrial society and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race!

[Anonymous No.22628994]

>>22628988
you read it too literally

[Anonymous No.22629036]

Sum up the thread's premise in one image. I'll start with pic related

[Anonymous No.22629042]

[Anonymous No.22629093]

>>22627212

>progress
increase in knowledge is not correlative to increase in the standard of living. Case in point, Radium.

>answers
Answers that are constantly updated are not answers. They are best guesses. Case in point, the status of Pluto.

>philosophy is nothing but mental masturbation

Science cannot tell you how to face death. Math cannot fix a broken marriage. Neither even begin to grapple with the tragedy of being.

The practitioners of science usually begin from a presumption of ignorance or uncertainty. I don't think you are any kind of scientist.

>philosophy is cope
Look at you, using an unproven hypothesis like an axiom. If you were a student of the sciences you wouldn't; it is bad science. If you were a student of philosophy you still wouldn't; it is bad rhetoric. I propose it is the fault of neither science or philosophy; you are just a bad student.

[Anonymous No.22629102]

>>22629093
Ok if we consider science and philosophy a small part of life and focus on the bigger parts of people's life, eating, digesting, watching listening and enduring.

[Anonymous No.22629111]

>>22627212
Discrete mathematics eternally btfo'd philosophy
>Its an incredibly obvious and scientifically useful concept
>Doesn't exist for 4000 years because it had no material need
>No one even thought about it
>Massivaly explodes in just a few decades when a material need for it arises
Tldr philosophy and the limits of human thought is downstream from scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.22629383]

>>22628377
What? How did Descartes solve the mind body problem?
I think he formulated the problem and made a paradigm out of it, but didn't solve it.

[Anonymous No.22629389]

>>22629383
Cartesian dualism is the only acceptable answer

[Anonymous No.22629420]

>>22627212
I would like you to crack open some Levinas, Ricoeur, Althusser, Deleuze, or Baudrillard and compare it to Plato and tell me that it hasn’t progressed at all. You are just philosophically illiterate and too retarded to be able to even discern the differences in the complexity of arguments and analytical methods. Likely you are a STEMfag who didn’t even take a single class on pure math either so what do you really know other than an assortment of equations and some derivation rules that you haven’t forgotten yet? You and your ilk will be replaced by AI in about 5-10 years. What will you have to prop up your bruised ego then?

[Anonymous No.22629428]

>>22629420
not anon, but AI that could replace majority B.Sc STEMs could probably create tailored psychological hugboxes.

[Anonymous No.22629444]

>>22629420
>I would like you to crack open some Levinas, Ricoeur, Althusser, Deleuze, or Baudrillard and compare it to Plato and tell me that it hasn’t progressed at all.
This is the oppposite of progress.

[Anonymous No.22629452]

>>22628954
Ethics, son.
The foundational principles underlying the system of peer review, non-tampering of data, regard for life.

[Anonymous No.22629455]

>In philosophy there is 2500 years of intellectual masturbation and nothing more
Okay, Kant.
>In math and science there is progress and answers.
From what I've seen there's more disagreement in science than a clear consensus these days. Maybe science can tell us what a woman is? kek

[Anonymous No.22629457]

>>22629444
Not anon, but prove your assertion.

[Anonymous No.22629460]

>>22629457
Plato was trying to make sense of the world. Continental "philosophers" are just trying to justify resentful violence.

[Anonymous No.22629465]

>>22627212
>In math and science there is progress and answers.
Answer to what?

[Anonymous No.22629471]

>>22629460
>You are just philosophically illiterate and too retarded to be able to even discern the differences in the complexity of arguments and analytical methods

[Anonymous No.22629472]

>>22629452
>no ethical problem ever solved by philosophy
>philosophers can't even justify something as simple as "you should not kill"
Any random person on the street is a better source for ethical advice than a philosopher. Philosophy has zero authority to claim over ethics.

[Anonymous No.22629485]

>>22629471
No, I just see through the the illusion of this so-called complexity enough to understand what these works actually are.

[Anonymous No.22629489]

>>22629485
Then explain how Levinas who’s first philosophy is ethics is a justification of violence. Explain what a first philosophy even is. (Level: impossible)

[Anonymous No.22629492]

>>22629389
that's not the answer, you just take a mind-body problem and call "dualism".

[Anonymous No.22629493]

>>22629460
>Plato tried to understand the world
>modern philosophers are just violence apologists.
That is hardly fair. Plato's world was a house, a hole, a rowboat, and the forum.

The modern philosophers live everywhere and everywhen at once in the internet.

The natural world by itself is already violent; the human world adds the complexity of intelligence on top of that essential violence.

I have not read any of the names mentioned, only braudrillard, and that barely. Even if they are all resentful and apologists for (qualified) violence, it is not obvious that they are certainly wrong.

[Anonymous No.22629523]

>lives in a peaceful, secure, generally respectful and ethical society which provides him with rights, protects his sovereignty, treats him as a dignified human individual, declares him free, grants him an opportunity to develop his interest within reason
>as opposed to living as a slave in a war-torn, tyrannical rape capital treated like an object, abused and mocked, raped and beaten, forced to perform labor or starve
"heh, philosophy accomplished nothing, based science gave me iPhone and Switch"

[Anonymous No.22629547]

>>22629472
>no ethical problem is ever solved by philosophy
In the same way that no material problem is every finally solved by science. There are improvements and more informed guesses, which are all that can be realistically be expected.

You can't treat scientists as fallable and limited human beings and then turn around and expect philosophers to be actual Boddhisattvas.

>but they can't tell me why though shalt not kill
>the man on the street can do better
the man on the street is even less able to explain what is thou shalt not kill, let alone Why thou shalt not kill.

The man on the street, on his own, would have only situational ethics, and the only governing principle for society would be power. That's basically DR Congo. Not good.

[Anonymous No.22629574]

>>22629472
>a man in a cave can do better than scientists
>two bowls of flour and a spoonful of yeast makes bread; who needs to do titration?
>rubbing two sticks makes fire; who needs to know about oxidation?
>we already got an abacus to count beans and pigs; who needs the Ln of anything?
>scientists have contributed nothing to bakery and cookfires and pigcounting.

Professional practitioners go for a higher degree of specific accuracy than is immediately useful in the street, but is necessary for society beyond the bone age.

[Anonymous No.22629679]

>>22629547
>>22629574
Show me an ethical problem a philosopher is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street. I can show you hundreds of math and physics questions only mathematicians and physicists can answer.

[Anonymous No.22629700]

>>22629679
How about you just fuck off back to /sci/ or /g/ or wherever it is you came from because I'm fed up of dumb faggots like you thinking they understand philosophy it's like me reading the wiki page on physics and thinking I am einstein fucking faggot kys

[Anonymous No.22629817]

>>22629700
Your lying appeals to authority have no power here. It's easy to show that you are not a physicist. A simple undergrad problem you cannot solve is sufficient. Analogously, it is easy to show that you have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. You repeatedly failed to provide an example of an ethical question where a philosopher has an advantage over a non-philosopher. We can safely assume that I am more educated with respect to philosophy than you.

[Anonymous No.22629838]

>>22629679
Random guys on the streets have been trusted with ethical, moral, and political issues for the last few centuries in a beautiful system of representative democracy, and we went from enlightenment to putting kids on hormone blockers. Damn if only some greek bro 2500 years ago said something about it and we listened...I guess Bill Nye The Science Guy is more trustworthy after all, he has science in the name

[Anonymous No.22629849]

>>22629817
I just came into this thread to tell you to fuck off, I'm not that other anon and I do not care about you or your opinions. It is not my job to justify philosophy to you, its utility is obvious to those that read it.

[Anonymous No.22629851]

>>22629838
>implying representative democracy cares what people on the street are saying
Lmao. You are clearly not a philosopher. Hormone treatment for kids is exclusively pushed by institutions not under the control of the people.

[Anonymous No.22629863]

>>22629849
Your kneejerk reaction only confirms my point. Philosophists like you know as much about philosophy as scientismists know about science, i.e. nothing. Wanna post some more insults? That's all you learned from 2500 years of academic discourse? Infantile insults? Lmao.

[Anonymous No.22629870]

>>22629863
I don't need your permission to read philosophy. You're the one who thinks about it enough to make this thread and argue with people about it. It seems you are the infantile one.

[Anonymous No.22629893]

>>22629870
>I don't need your permission to read philosophy.
I'm sure that's why you're so desperately begging for my attention. Nobody forced you to reply.

>You're the one who thinks about it enough to make this thread and argue with people about it.
I'm not OP.

[Anonymous No.22629917]

>>22629893
Wow nice argument. Nobody forced you to reply to me either, yet here you are, desperately begging for the attention of a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22629926]

>>22629917
>of a philosopher
The only philosopher ITT am I. You already admitted knowing nothing about the subject.

[Anonymous No.22629933]

>>22629926
I think you should've said "is me".

[Anonymous No.22629938]

>>22629926
>You already admitted
Where? Nice reading comprehension from the 200IQ scientist top kek.

[Anonymous No.22629940]

>>22629679
>show me an ethical problem that a philosopher is more qualified than a street guy to answer

A street guy will put a couple minutes of brainpower into an ethical question; most likely he would not even think of that ethical question.

A philosopher of ethics spends years going down that specific rabbit hole.

Assuming they are of equal intelligence, the difference will be work and experience.

Ask me to make a table, I can probably make it. But my clone who spent the last twenty years making will be more intimately acquainted with materials, center of balance, methods. His table will likely be more solid, more level, with additional functions.

I'm a man with ketchup stains on my shirt from falling asleep eating nuggies. Put me back in time and I can never have predicted the failure of religion and art and the insufficiency of science to sustain morality like Nietzsche did. Yes, the problem is not solved, but surely you can appreciate it is a feat just predicting the problem.

[Anonymous No.22629963]

>>22629679
You can show me no math or physics questions that are absolutely answered. All science answers are on AFAIK basis, waiting to be disproved.

The biggest boast you can make is you are *mostly* very sure. As I have previously mentioned, the status of Pluto.

[Anonymous No.22629979]

>>22629679
Show me an ethical problem that a scientist is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street. If you're going to say that it's not a scientists job, then whose? Nobody's? So ethics is just a fun free-for-all? Shall we start dismantling courts today since people are so obviously capable of governing themselves?

[Anonymous No.22629986]

>>22629933
Sorry, I'm ESL.

>>22629938
>Where?
Here: >>22629849

[Anonymous No.22629997]

>>22629979
>Show me an ethical problem that a scientist is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street.
Pic rel.

>If you're going to say that it's not a scientists job, then whose? Nobody's? So ethics is just a fun free-for-all?
Exactly.

>Shall we start dismantling courts today since people are so obviously capable of governing themselves?
That would actually be an improvement. But your reasoning is flawed. Courts are not deciding based on ethics. They are deciding based on mostly unethical laws made by rich people.

[Anonymous No.22630002]

>>22629679
well done, I'm convinced, you have proven philosophy a hollow and pointless enterprise.

There is no point in your being here any more.

>but I need to tell you your dumm
Thus showing that for all the math you know your human life suffers a want of meaning.

>I find meaning in telling you your dumm
>questioning your presuppositions
>arguing you BTFO
So....the Socratic method? Philosophic bedrock? This is what happens when one fails to start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.22630005]

>>22629963
>You can show me no math or physics questions that are absolutely answered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theorems
All of these are proven. You have no idea how math is done, do you?

[Anonymous No.22630013]

>>22629997
Oh we got ebin anarchist in da house, carry on this guy is too powerful, he rejects stuff!

[Anonymous No.22630014]

>>22630002
I'm not even arguing against philosophy as a whole. Only ethics and "philosophy of science" are bullshit. Philosophy of mind is valid, though it's mostly solved. Metaphysics is okay too, but belongs to physics nowadays.

[Anonymous No.22630015]

>>22629986
And where exactly in this statement did I 'admit' anything? Or are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.22630019]

>>22630015
In the last sentence. Do you need more spoonfeeding (sigh) or do you see it now?

[Anonymous No.22630028]

>>22630014
How is "philosophy of science" bullshit?
If it's bullshit then science is bullshit too, because science is based on the philosophy of science, but your claim is that science is not bullshit, right?

[Anonymous No.22630035]

>>22630019
> It is not my job to justify philosophy to you, its utility is obvious to those that read it.
Where do I say 'I admit'? Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.22630042]

>>22630028
>How is "philosophy of science" bullshit?
It's cringe and unnecessary. Science works irregardless of whether some midwitted pseuds fail to understand how it works.

>If it's bullshit then science is bullshit too, because science is based on the philosophy of science
Science has never been based on philosophy. Scientific methodology has its origins several millennia before "philosophy" was a thing and progressed independently. In fact, the only thing philosophy ever did to science was to hold it back by insane ideology throughout the dark ages.

[Anonymous No.22630050]

>>22630042
>irregardless
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.22630051]

>>22630035
You admitted implicitly by posting something self-contradictory without even noticing.

[Anonymous No.22630057]

>>22630051
and where is the contradiction? or are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.22630137]

>>22630042
>Science works irregardless of whether some midwitted pseuds fail to understand how it works.
Ok, describe how it works. That description is philosophy of science.
I think you're confused about what is part of what and about definitions.
You can substitute "thinking" instead of "philosophy" because that's what it basically is.
So saying that thinking is bullshit or comparing science to thinking doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.22630175]

>>22630005

The page you linked also includes Conjectures, which are still require more proof, and remajn open to disproval. If Conjectures are a subset of theorems, as here, then theorems are not absolutely true, just AFAWK true.

Case study.

Euclid's fifth Principle was debated for 2000 years before Ican'trememberwho (at least two fellers, independently) arrived on the solution of curved planes. Euclid is foundational for architecture, without being absolutely proven for 2000 years. The most that could be said of it was that it seemed to work very very well. Thus, math can still be very functional as an observationally derived algorithm without being fully understood. In other words, you can know how to math and yet not /know/ math.

Again, AFAWK basis.

[Anonymous No.22630236]

>>22630137
>Ok, describe how it works.
You should have learned the scientific method in highschool. I'm sorry to hear about your lack of education.

>That description is philosophy of science.
Absolutely not.

>You can substitute "thinking" instead of "philosophy" because that's what it basically is.
Lmao, no. Hilarious cope. You redefine philosophy as a synonym for thinking so you can claim credit for literally everything. The invention of toilet paper was philosophy. The production of porn is philosophy. Hahaha. Intellectual property theft. That's what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.22630241]

>>22630014

>ethics is bs
Ethics are the only thing stopping your highest, nichest specialists from fabricating data and lying for a Nobel Prize. It is the motivation behind the practice of peer review. The love of truth /is/ ethics.

Ethics are also the basis of laws and updates of laws. Not useless.

As I have said before, without ethics informing laws politics and every other human relation, society quickly collapses into Machiavellian power games, DR Congo. You are only able to say ethics are useless because it works so well so pervasively in your society you don't even notice it. Eating the fruit without seeing the root.

[Anonymous No.22630259]

>>22630175
>uncertainty principle
That's a proven theorem about non-commutative operators.

>conjectures
I didn't read the whole list. There's a lot of theorems in that list though, thus disproving >>22629963 who claimed there was no settled math.


>Euclid's fifth principle
Is an axiom, not a theorem. Learn the difference.

>I can't remember who (at least two fellers, independently)
Lobachevsky and Bolyai

>without being fully understood
Euclidean geometry is fully understood. It is a complete, effective and consistent theory in first oder logic.

[Anonymous No.22630320]

>>22630236
No, you don't get it.
I'm not really requesting the description of how science works.
I'm saying that if you describe how science works, that description will belong to philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.22630359]

neo-medievalization

[Anonymous No.22630376]

>>22627212
>he believes in progress
Lol

[Anonymous No.22630735]

This thread is a clear Indication of underage tards infesting a once decent board. It wasn’t even this bad two years ago

[Anonymous No.22630861]

>>22630735
two years ago there was guernonfag pushing pamphlet tier Buddhism and oldfag anons moaning it was better in the good old days.

there has been no change.

[Anonymous No.22630908]

>>22630259

>no settled math anon
er. *raise hand*
thas me.

>Lobachevsky and bolyai
Thems the fellers.

>theorems in list
>theorem means math is fully settled
I see. Precluded by definition. Ok.

>learn the difference between axiom and theorem
I did refer to Euclid's fifth as a principle, not a theorem. I know they are different.

Page says an axiom is held as absolutely evident, which Euclid's fifth wasn't for 2000 years. This is what I mean by math not being stable.

>theorems still are absolutely proven tho
Per picrel: theorems are true within the parameters of certain assumptions. This is also what I mean by math not being certain: a formula that only works between (here) and (there).

[Anonymous No.22630927]

>>22630908
add:

>Euclid is fully understood
Not until them two bright fellers; a 2000 year running argument is not what most people would call absolutely understood.

[Anonymous No.22630949]

>>22630014
Are you OP?

you better not be. That nigger blanket dissed all philosophy, not just ethics.

[Anonymous No.22631082]

>>22627212
>charges into /lit/ to say
>/phil/</sci/ because /phil/≠/sci/
Science deals with impersonal mechanics; philosophy deals with human meanings. You're comparing apples to applets.

>but /sci/ gives progress
>/phil/ gives wordwank lol
Come back when science has obtained human immortality and established a post-scarcity economy. Until then philosophy needed as a cope and a defense against bad memes.

>lmao you're all BTFOTFO
>all I got from here was wordwank
>as expected
>I am dealing with foetuses
>as predicted
Hey Einstein, philosophy is a /his/ province.
/lit/ doesn't read; (YOU) can't.

[Anonymous No.22631094]

>>22627212
Contemporary philosophy is still valid though. The Greeks couldn't have possibly known about the modern day problems we would have.

[Anonymous No.22631515]

>>22630861
I was there and the board was better for it

[Anonymous No.22631521]

>>22627212
philosophy has circumscribed the boundaries of knowledge within which the sciences operate. had it not been for philosophy, you'd lack the narrative of "progress" you use to declare the supremacy of science, or a concrete definition of science. philosophy is the mother discourse, she gives birth to other discourses and raises them in their early years. that they strike out on their own isn't a mark of her failure, but a testament to her success.

[Anonymous No.22631525]

>>22629679
Why should I act morally?

[Anonymous No.22631669]

>>22630320
>le every description is le philosophy
Why are you so proud of not knowing what philosophy is?

[Anonymous No.22631673]

>>22627212
people don't go into philosophy and expect to cum at the end. it's patrician much like edging and tantric practice generally.

[Anonymous No.22632019]

>>22629093
>increase in knowledge is not correlative to increase in the standard of living.
Yet stagnation means just shitting under yourself, waiting for the entropy to increase.

>Answers that are constantly updated are not answers. They are best guesses. Case in point, the status of Pluto.
But some guesses are better than others. Pluto is better than Yuggoth.

>Math cannot fix a broken marriage.
But game theory can offer insights.
>Neither even begin to grapple with the tragedy of being.
Yet they are the source of that tragedy.
A few thousand years ago, you thought that you were at the center of the universe, the most perfect creation, that the Sky Daddy loved.
Now God is dead, and the debates are on whether 'you' are not a zombie, and why the Fermi Paradox exists.

>using an unproven hypothesis like an axiom
It's called a hypothetico-deductive model. And so far the case is, that science delivers, and philosophy retreats.

[Anonymous No.22632150]

>>22628078
>he actually thinks modern democracy upholds personal liberty

[Anonymous No.22632157]

Why are early 2000s atheists so high test?

[Anonymous No.22632163]

>>22628823
Evidence and experimentation are inherently philosophical methods. The distinction between the two is due to practical and historical reasons. Science is the most successful method of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22632171]

>>22629472
>philosophy cannot solve this moral dilemma
But philosophy does offer a ton of deontological systems with arguments to support it
>YEAH BUT WHICH ONE IS ROIGHT
Test it, apply it in the form of a law and see the results. Almost like, I dunno, science does. Hypothesis, experiment, acceptance or rejection.

[Anonymous No.22632172]

>>22631669
>Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.

Is this not the purpose of science? Science is just a subset, a method of philosophy. Where do you think the scientific method came from? Science' only purpose is the discovery of truth. The literal purpose of philosophy. You just dislike other philosophical methods and only subscribe to the scientific form of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22632186]

>>22632171
>Test infinity, apply it in the form a random guess

[Anonymous No.22632189]

>>22632186
How do you think science works, nigger? Physicists condict experiments that go nowhere all the time. Everything prior to an experiment is little more than an educated guess, an intuition.

[Anonymous No.22632663]

>>22632019
>some guesses are better than others.
Not saying they aren't, but OP was saying science offers answers. Come back with that mf goalpost.

>game theory can offer insights
When philosophy offers insights it gets called wordwank non-answers. Make up your neuron.

>yet philosophy is the source of the tragedy of being

If you understand religion as an invention, it was invented to address an already strange and dangerous universe. It does not originate tragedy, it was a response. You are either trolling or sleep deficient.

>a hypodeductive model
So, a framework bounded by assumptions. Like a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22632763]

Go suck a cock nerd, it is WE, ethics board, who control YOU. Good luck conducting an experiment without OUR approval.

[Anonymous No.22632898]

>>22632171
>deontological
Cringe. This is why we can't take philosophers' opinion on ethics seriously.

[Anonymous No.22632906]

>>22632172
> Science is just a subset, a method of philosophy.
False. Philosophy is a subset of science.

>Where do you think the scientific method came from?
17th century alchemists wanted their experimental results to be repeatable.

>Science' only purpose is the discovery of truth.
True. That's why science is better than philosophy.

>The literal purpose of philosophy.
False. Many philosophers actively hate truth or deny its existence.

[Anonymous No.22632950]

>>22632906
> if you describe how science works, that description will belong to philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.22632968]

>>22627656
>uses mathematics to form military economy
>uses science to develop cluster bombs
>drone strokes you while you wonder if the sun is evil or not

[Anonymous No.22633017]

>>22632898
>>22632906
>>22632968
>>22632950
Filtered

[Anonymous No.22633021]

>>22632150
>he thinks monarchy is the answer to that

[Anonymous No.22633036]

>>22627897
You know who Pyrrho copied yes

[Anonymous No.22633059]

>>22632950
If you accurately describe how science works then that's basic science education. If you feel unwarrantedly smug over a grossly oversimplified, midwitted and inaccurate description of science then it's philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.22633098]

>>22633059
So you're one of those people who hate philosophy while not knowing what it is, and struggle admitting that the description of how science works belongs to philosophy of science.

Just think about it. Science is based on something that is not science.

It's not science all the way down.

Maybe you thought that you've got all figured out by saying "science rules, and everything else sucks", but as you see, it's time to move on, otherwise you get stuck in this "science rules" phase.

[Anonymous No.22633108]

>>22633098
>So you're one of those people who hate philosophy
I don't hate philosophy, I only hate "philosophy of science". Nice lack of reading comprehension.

>Just think about it. Science is based
Yes.

>on something that is not science.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.22633117]

>>22633108
you said that yourself.
> If you accurately describe how science works then that's basic science education.
is "basic science education" itself science? no. so science is based on something that is not science.
science is not everything, it's just a tool.

[Anonymous No.22633136]

>>22633117
It's based on IQ and common sense, i.e. the opposite of "philosophy of science".

[Anonymous No.22633141]

Imagine not being able to comprehend philosophy, maths, and science at the same time.

[Anonymous No.22633245]

>>22633136
>It's based on IQ and common sense
almost there, the last step is realizing that philosophy deals with common sense, it's philosophy's job to figure out what common sense says.

[Anonymous No.22634695]

>>22627212
math and science have made good progress in destroying the planet and all of humanity in the long run, Great Filter awaits us, should’ve stayed in Eden dumbass

[Anonymous No.22634871]

>>22627212
My good nigga, there's many schools of philosophy who agree with you. Believing science is the only thing truly giving us progress in the form of proving and describing realities about the natural world doesn't mean you should get rid of philosophy entirely, as engaging in science is indirectly engaging in philosophy.
Materialists, physicalists, positivists, and most philosophers of science engage in "scientism", that is, believing science should be the main way of gaining knowledge of reality. I say this sincerely, open a book and stop being an edgy retard who bases his personality to be the epic science man but can't defend your position as to why you hold that to be true.

[Anonymous No.22635522]

>>22632906
>Philosophy is a subset of science

Ok troll or literal retard no point in further engaging

[Anonymous No.22635566]

>>22632968
You moron. While you were developing weapons I was busy understanding the fundamental nature of reality, leading me to develop a solid rational, in turn suggesting that I subvert your people and have them rebel against you in myself by another name.
Might makes right after all brainlet.

[Anonymous No.22635664]

>>22627212
You are engaging in philosophical reasoning when you argue that philosophy is useless.

[Anonymous No.22636404]

>>22635664
Nope, I engage only in metaphilosophy.

[Anonymous No.22636407]

>>22635522
Logic is math, metaphysics belongs to quantum physics, philosophy of mind has been solved, ethics is not philosophy at all but just common sense.

[Anonymous No.22636421]

>>22636407
>philosophy of mind has been solved
what do you mean?
what is the solution then?

[Anonymous No.22636423]

>>22636421
Cartesian dualism

[Anonymous No.22636439]

>>22636423
that's not a solution, that's just a restatement of the problem.

[Anonymous No.22636706]

>>22627212
Yet the only interesting questions are those of philosophy.
Such is the state of the human mind: it can answer why a pig became a pig, but not why existence itself started, or if it started.

[Anonymous No.22636733]

>>22629523
You’re entirely correct anon, I don’t get how people arguing philosophical and theological studies have no value can’t recognize the benefits it has to society let alone themselves.

[Anonymous No.22636743]

>>22633141
>still no counter-argument
I accept your concession, OP.

[Anonymous No.22638117]

test