"Philosophy is dead." -Stephen Hawking

File: 25 KB, 460x288, stephen-hawking_1387959c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 01:56:44 2012 No.2897862 [DELETED]

"Philosophy is dead."
-Stephen Hawking

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 01:57:44 2012 No.2897867 "Stephen Hawking is crippled." -Philosophy

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 01:58:43 2012 No.2897868 Says the handicapped theorist hack.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 01:59:43 2012 No.2897873 Isaac Newton is dead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:00:44 2012 No.2897877 "Dead philosophy is." -Yoda

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:02:43 2012 No.2897882
File: 8 KB, 197x197, lawrence-krauss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.”
-Lawrence Krauss

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:03:43 2012 No.2897885 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747 >>>/q/81747

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:03:43 2012 No.2897888
File: 23 KB, 221x345, Krauss-w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

“Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, ‘those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.' And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever. ... they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”
-Lawrence Krauss

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:03:43 2012 No.2897889 >>2897882 I'd love to see your precious science explain precognitive dreams and ghosts enjoy your mild depression you sociopath

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:04:43 2012 No.2897890 >>2897862 "because general relativity describes how time flows slower the closer an object is to a large mass" -Hawking

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:04:43 2012 No.2897893 >>2897882 "Every time there's a leap in physics, 1000 scientists go on all the major news shows to jerk off about how cool the things they do are, and so you have this natural disdain for the self-involved nature of the sciences.”

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:05:43 2012 No.2897894 >>2897889 >scientists >sociopaths obviously butthurt Englsih major troll is obvious

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:06:43 2012 No.2897897 >>2897894 "b-b-b-but my reductionism! fuck emotions!" - you

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:07:43 2012 No.2897898 >>2897889 >paranoid schizophrenic with imbecilic delusions and only half of a hippocampus because of LSD abuse It can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:09:45 2012 No.2897903 Essential reads on the flaws of scientism and/or positivism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:09:45 2012 No.2897906 File: 63 KB, 399x382, 1343836011248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897898 >implying we can possess knowledge gonna have to do better than that science

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:10:45 2012 No.2897907 >>2897903 the bible

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:11:45 2012 No.2897908 >>2897907 lol'd

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:11:45 2012 No.2897909 >>2897903 The eclipse of Reason by Max Horkheimer is a pretty good attack of positivism & pragmatism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:11:45 2012 No.2897910 >>2897906 Can you formulate a coherent argument instead of spewing immature babble? Define knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:11:45 2012 No.2897911 >>2897897 Why do idiots believe emotions are actually magic? That's the ending to a cheesy TV show, not philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:13:04 2012 No.2897918 File: 16 KB, 200x288, 1340562300634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897911 i don't believe thinks you jew, i create truths. mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:13:04 2012 No.2897919 >>2897893 yes, they do often over sell a leap in physics. When there's an actual leap in philosophy though, you're welcome to do the same.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:13:45 2012 No.2897913 >>2897910 any and all definitions you can think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilism

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:14:04 2012 No.2897920

I hope /lit/ knows that Hawking/Krauss are pretentious fucktards and do not speak for the whole of the scientific community.

Hawking insults philosophy, yet he himself practices it by doing theoretical physics.

Same with Krauss.

Experimentalsts are also not like this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:14:04 2012 No.2897921 well /lit/ reversed this troll pretty fucking quickly. leling hard

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:15:03 2012 No.2897925 File: 137 KB, 652x583, KraussLawrence_4177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] "Every time I make a wildly reductive and laughably broad statement, people give me attention." -Lawrence Krauss

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:15:03 2012 No.2897926 >>2897920 >Hawking insults philosophy, yet he himself practices it by doing theoretical physics you're just as pretentious as he is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:15:04 2012 No.2897923 >>2897862 interesting philosophical position

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:16:03 2012 No.2897928 >>2897926 Hawking really is a pretentious bastard - you can hear it in the tone of his voice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:17:03 2012 No.2897929 >>2897926 >pretentious doesn't mean what you think it does

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:17:03 2012 No.2897930 >>2897913 What is the point of living if you do not know anything?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:17:03 2012 No.2897931 >>2897929 prescriptivist scum

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:18:03 2012 No.2897934 >>2897930 Hey, hey, look on the bright side: you wouldn't know there was no points to living.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:18:03 2012 No.2897935 >>2897930 There's no point, but I fail to see how that's a problem, and I fail even more to see how there being no point is a result of there being no knowledge. You're outta your league, son

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:19:03 2012 No.2897939 >>2897913 So you deny objectivity?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:20:03 2012 No.2897942 >>2897939 of course not, it's just not observable. this really isn't difficult, folks

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:22:03 2012 No.2897943 >>2897935 Objectivity by definition is observable.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:23:06 2012 No.2897945

>>2897928
lel
>>2897929
no i think it does. You try to make your interest more important by piggybacking off the value of other subjects. There was a similar pic i'll try to look for that did the same thing, except with some type of chemistry. You're just doing it with philosophy. If philosophy is of any real value, then you don't need to affirm it with small interconnections to other subjects.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:23:06 2012 No.2897946 >>2897928 lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:24:06 2012 No.2897948 >>2897943 1/10 pick it up scibros, we're counting on you to save da world

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:26:06 2012 No.2897952 >>2897948 save it yourselves, we're busy with the rest of the universe.

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Mon Aug 13 02:26:06 2012 No.2897953 So is this it? Is complete autistic detachment from subjectivity the way human thought is heading?

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:26:06 2012 No.2897955

>>2897945
> If philosophy is of any real value, then you don't need to affirm it with small interconnections to other subjects.
How was this implied in >>2897920? I stated that Hawking/Krauss by virtue use the methodology of philosophy, yet they insult it.

It's a loose correlation to interpret that as 'philosophy is useless on its own right without application'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:27:06 2012 No.2897957 >>2897948 Define objectivity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:27:06 2012 No.2897959 >>2897952 dats not the utilitarian way nigga. why you're not a scientist at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:28:06 2012 No.2897961 >>2897957 No, you filthy prescriptivist. Signs are dead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:29:06 2012 No.2897965 >>2897910 >define Stop right there, my love.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:29:06 2012 No.2897966 >>2897945 >implying anything has use get a load of this redditor

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:29:06 2012 No.2897969 >>2897965 You tell him continetalbro, real philosophers make sure no one knows what the hell they're talking about. It's deeper that way

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:31:06 2012 No.2897971 File: 285 KB, 448x421, 1337713182353.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897953 you don't know what autism is brudda. NMH are entry-level indie too. enjoy your plebeian tastes :3

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:32:06 2012 No.2897974 >>2897969 >getting analragnaroked because he ain't got shit face it scibros, your field is worthless and you're all of sub-par intelligence

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:33:06 2012 No.2897981 >>2897969 2deep4u All joking aside, though, I only said that because the extent of a typical /sci/fag troll's argumentation is >define this, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN >define define define

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:34:06 2012 No.2897983 >>2897955 I was saying how making loose connections between the two does nothing to help your case. their problem is not with whatever methods might be common between science and philosophy, but with the value of philosophical study itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:35:06 2012 No.2897986 >>2897959 why should all scientist be utilitarians? they are not engineers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:35:06 2012 No.2897989 >>2897983 >he doesn't know that science is a sub-branch of philosophy if this is the future generation of scientists then lel out lold we're fucked

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:36:06 2012 No.2897990 >>2897981 Agreed, they should take that Socratic shit out of here: it's got nothing to do with philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:36:06 2012 No.2897991 >>2897981 His use of language is very imprecise. I know you guys don't care about that for various non-reasons but it's actually very important to make yourself clear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:36:06 2012 No.2897992 >>2897986 no one should be a utilitarian but that's the mind-set of scientific advance

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:37:24 2012 No.2897993 >>2897989 >lel out lold I lyld

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:38:25 2012 No.2897998

The decline of the physicist-philosopher

Feyerabend was critical of the lack of knowledge of philosophy shown by the generation of physicists that emerged after World War II:

The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:38:25 2012 No.2897999 >>2897992 because things like understanding black holes and the how the universe began have any real impact on the average person's life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:40:25 2012 No.2898005 >>2897999 as a solipsist reality only exists within my mind so any discoveries are meaningless as i already knew them

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:41:25 2012 No.2898006 File: 2 KB, 126x92, 1294951711127s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898005

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:41:25 2012 No.2898008 >>2897989 read the post..we share certain styles of though, but science adds to it. science would be just as pointless as philosophy without some empiricism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:42:25 2012 No.2898009 >>2898008 thought*

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:42:25 2012 No.2898010 >>2897983 Are you 12? 13? What do you think "theoretical" means? Do you know what "philosophy of science" is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:44:25 2012 No.2898012 >>2898008 empiricism is explicitly fallible tho bro induction and all that

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:44:25 2012 No.2898016

>>2898008
No, you see, it's probably not possible to know anything with absolute certainty, right? And as we all know there's no room whatsoever between absolute certainty and random guesses. That means I can believe WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT as long as it sounds good (or makes me sound smart). Thus Lacan is totally valid, Derrida a genius, and science irrelevant. This is /lit/'s mindset.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:44:25 2012 No.2898017 >>2897999 No, but cooperation is required to achieve scientific endeavours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:45:25 2012 No.2898019 >>2898017 When was the last time a philosopher contributed anything to a scientific endeavor?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:46:26 2012 No.2898022 >>2898019 probs when aristotle invented science

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:47:26 2012 No.2898024 >>2898016 yep. y u mad tho? im yet to see you refute anything

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:47:26 2012 No.2898026

>>2898010
>implying philosophy of science is any more valid
theoretical, at least, has a sense of empiricism.
>>2898012
any more fallible than philosophy without it? at least with empiricism, you have some kind of foundation. not just subjective interpretations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:48:25 2012 No.2898027 File: 93 KB, 1563x318, lolsci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: the scientific method gets fucked in the ass by at least 4 schools of thought and STEM majors get mad

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:48:25 2012 No.2898028 >>2898022 it's been quite a while then?

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:49:25 2012 No.2898030

>>2898019
Are you fucking retarded?

How about all of physics? Classical mechanics after Newton did not involve tweaks to incorporate experimental data, it involved trying to describe why Newton's laws worked. General relativity was a complete "guess" until experimental evidence came around. Same with a good portion of QFT.

Same with string theory.

How about the postulation on the structure of DNA?

All philosophy of science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:49:25 2012 No.2898032 >>2898028 time is relative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) i hate explaining all this shit that should be assumed knowledge to scibros

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:51:25 2012 No.2898034 >>2898032 I laugh when I see people switch between the senses of words like that, but then I remember that contemporary humanities departments take stuff premised on that seriously and I get sad. fuck you /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:52:25 2012 No.2898037 >>2898032 rephrasing it another way, you've been of no use other than at the very beginning of it. seems pretty outdated bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:53:13 2012 No.2898041 >>2898037 But is there anything wrong with being of no use to a field which is of no use?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:53:13 2012 No.2898042 >>2898030 Calculus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:53:13 2012 No.2898044 >>2898024 >switching the burden of proof Explain how all reality works and be sure to include that somehow all of empiricism is debunked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:53:13 2012 No.2898045 >>2898016 >And as we all know there's no room whatsoever between absolute certainty and random guesses. That really is /lit/'s mindset, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:53:13 2012 No.2898046 >>2898037 the beginning and the end are one and the same. you're bad at this >>2898034 hahahaha dat mad. delicious sociopath tears. come back when you can win an argument scibro

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:54:13 2012 No.2898048 >>2898045 Not that guy, but as far as I can tell, yes it is.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:55:13 2012 No.2898049

>>2898030
jesus christ..it's already been said they share some methodology. the difference is that philosophy stops there and science doesn't. do you think the theory of relativity would have any value without empirical backing? that is where the distinction between a useful subject and a useless one lies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:56:13 2012 No.2898052 >>2898044 >implying my epistesmelogical nihilistic position isn't a negative state >implying the burden of proof isn't on you that reality exists lel science

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:56:13 2012 No.2898056 >>2898046 but they are not. does eternalism have anything to indicate its validity other than "sounds good"? until it does, i am not forced to accept it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:56:14 2012 No.2898053 >>2898049 That's... really not true at all. Like, there is a difference in what they're trying to describe and what the standards of proof for it to be "useful" are. A fundamental difference.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:56:14 2012 No.2898055 >>2898030 >All philosophy of science. You should at least Google "philosophy of science" before you confuse it with hypothesis formation, /lit/bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:57:13 2012 No.2898057 >>2898052 >implying you exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:57:13 2012 No.2898058 >>2898044 >burden of proof lol Here, let me list some other scibro catchphrases >hard sciences, define X, evidence This is like your home away from home, scifags

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:57:13 2012 No.2898059 >>2898057 >no

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:58:13 2012 No.2898060 >>2898052 Who cares if it does? If I stick my foot up your ass like you deserve you're going to get mad, not speculate about whether my foot is "really" inside your anal cavity. Really, it's just not an interesting question at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:58:13 2012 No.2898061 >>2898055 What do you think a hypothesis is? What do you think philosophy is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:59:13 2012 No.2898063 GUYS GUYS GUYS WE CAN OBSERVE OBJECTIVE REALITY BECAUSE MAGIC SCIENCE IS GOD'S GIFT TO HUMANITY SOCIOPATHY IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:59:13 2012 No.2898065 >>2898049 You did not get the point whatsoever. You cannot have science without philosophy. You also cannot have philosophy without some basis of reality. Try to do philosophy without human intuition. You can't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 02:59:13 2012 No.2898066 >>2898060 >drawing false conclusions typical buttmad scifag

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:00:13 2012 No.2898069

>>2898053
so what do you do when there are conflicting and completely incompatible views in philosophy? you argue about it until....until something happens? In science, you use empirical evidence to disprove one or the other. this is the distinction i'm trying to make.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:00:13 2012 No.2898070

>>2898061
>The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods, and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth. In addition to these central problems of science as a whole, many philosophers of science also consider problems that apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy.

Hypothesis formation is coming with educated (or not so educated) guesses about things that you proceed to test.

Once again /lit/ confirmed for pretentious fucks

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:00:13 2012 No.2898071 >>2898052 >the burden of proof isn't on you that reality exists Define reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:00:13 2012 No.2898073 Philosophy is a science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:01:13 2012 No.2898075 >>2898063 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:02:08 2012 No.2898076 >>2898070 sure that's valid it sounded as tho you were implying that philosophy was without value because the standards of evidence relevant to science don't apply in the case of philosophy. that's what i was objecting to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:02:08 2012 No.2898077 >>2898063 Science has proven reality is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:02:08 2012 No.2898078 >>2898071 Jacques Derrida proved that words mean nothing. We aren't even having this conversation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:03:08 2012 No.2898079 >>2898071 Define "define." Now do you see why this is not a good way to have an discussion scibros?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:03:08 2012 No.2898081 Fuck you shithead /sci/ idiots. I swear to fucking god, stop coming over here and making dumb threads about how literature / philosophy are worthless and Only Science Is The Way Forward. You pricks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:04:05 2012 No.2898083 >>2898081 maybe when philosophy does anything useful I'll stop claiming science is the only way forward.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:05:05 2012 No.2898084 >>2898083 Define useful

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:05:05 2012 No.2898085 >>2898076 I wasn't implying that there. It is true of course, but I wasn't implying it there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:05:05 2012 No.2898086 >>2898081 NO YOU ARE LETTING THEM WIN BY GETTING ANGRY

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:05:05 2012 No.2898087 >>2898079 Logic itself is unfalsifiable. That doesn't make it invalid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:06:05 2012 No.2898090 >>2898085 Your fallacies are futile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:06:05 2012 No.2898091 >>2898084 I thought word choice was supposed to go unchallenged here in the finest sophistic tradition?

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:07:05 2012 No.2898092

guise, hey guise
you're going about this all wrong
the only thing that really matters is what you can make a living with. no point philosophizing about the meaning of life if you're a bum on the streets, and there's no point of theorizing unless you can afford instruments to make observations with.
Medical studies are the only way to go, prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:08:04 2012 No.2898095 >>2898092 b-but muh meaning even though i don't actually believe it exists

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:08:05 2012 No.2898093 >>2898081 >confirmed for buttmad scifag trying to save face

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:09:04 2012 No.2898097 Physics, a discipline with a descriptive vocabulary. Philosophy, a discipline that seeks to explain normative pheomena. Done now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:09:04 2012 No.2898098 >>2898091 >implying we're not all descriptivists i wish you scifags knew the first fucking thing about anything other than when dawkins' next book is getting published

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:09:04 2012 No.2898099 >>2898092 Well well well. So many implicit implications. Now you have to define "living" and "life" and since these are defined subjectively , it would be insufficient to link to wikipedia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:10:07 2012 No.2898100 >>2898087 Not really though If were to observe p and not-p being true at the same time, logic would be falsified. It's just that it doesn't happen

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:10:07 2012 No.2898101 >>2898091 Actually I think we should just drown every word in every statement with endless demands for definitions. That way, we forget what we were arguing about instead of getting any clarification.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:12:07 2012 No.2898103 >>2898098 Is /lit/ really this ignorant about its own subject? The definitions of words being contextual doesn't make them meaningless. David Foster Wallace wrote a nice piece about this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:12:08 2012 No.2898104 >>2898092 >the meaning of life oh god all STEM majors should be put down

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:12:08 2012 No.2898105

>>2898095
who needs meaning when you got 3 teenage whores on you bed every day you wake up? enjoy telling me my life is meaningless /lit/fags or telling me i'm statistically more likely to die at a younger age /sci/fags. like i give a fuck
>>2898099
i have bitches on my dick. my truth is objective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:12:08 2012 No.2898107 >>2898100 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:13:08 2012 No.2898108

>>2898052
In what terms do physical things have a "reality"? How do you objectively define "something real"? The problem is that "reality" is not properly defined. You cannot prove existence (unless you're working in a mathematical framework). Existence has to be taken as a fact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:13:08 2012 No.2898109 >>2898103 DFW is a fucking entry-level faggot who didn't know shit and I'm glad he's dead. of course you'd look up to him you ignorant piece of unpatriotic sociopathic magic-believing scientist

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:13:08 2012 No.2898110 >>2898104 yes they should, as well as all humanities majors. thanks for needlessly re-stating my point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:14:07 2012 No.2898113 >>2898105 this is /fit/'s mentality

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:14:07 2012 No.2898114 >>2898109 woah woah woah, if i do science, it's for america.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:15:07 2012 No.2898115 >>2898110 typical scientism sociopath i bet you've never seen a ghost

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:15:07 2012 No.2898116 >>2898113 and it's objectively true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:16:07 2012 No.2898117 >>2898116 you're bad at this

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:17:07 2012 No.2898118

>>2898005
From a philosophical stance no "truth" is more valid than another "truth" (hoever you define that). The problem with your post is that you put belief on the same level with experience. When we individually experience something, we can talk about it and can ask others whether they experience something similar. We give it a name (qualia) and try to explain it. Beliefs like the ones mentioned in your post are on another level. They are not directly experienced, but they serve to explain other things. Your explanation is unfalsifiable, and therefore worthless. You should focus on the things we can experience.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:19:07 2012 No.2898120 >>2898118 >others stop right there wittgensteinian scum, there are no others for solipsists. gotta read more bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:19:07 2012 No.2898121 >Science can't prove anything! it is based on assumptions! >But I know for certain that I can be certain that reality may be fake!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:20:07 2012 No.2898122 >>2898120 thats nice and all (bro), but others still exist even if you don't want them to

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:20:07 2012 No.2898124 >>2898120 Troll harder.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:22:07 2012 No.2898130

>>2898115
i don't need to see a ghost. i see large numbers in my bank account. i can pay someone to cleverly trick me into thinking i saw a ghost if i wanted to.
>>2898117
no, you are. My truth is clearly valid, yet you try to deny it without even giving a reason for your herresy. F-, apply yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:22:08 2012 No.2898131 >>2898122 >false conclusions and considering your entire post was meant to be a critique of his philosophical position I found it funny that you did shit all to argue against it. classic science

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:23:08 2012 No.2898133 File: 3 KB, 300x300, 1344668524946.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898130 give up pal

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:24:07 2012 No.2898136 File: 6 KB, 250x205, 1340505317849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898133

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:25:07 2012 No.2898139 File: 21 KB, 528x434, 1337193556215.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898136 stay owned

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:26:10 2012 No.2898140 >>2898133 i would (i certainly have enough saved up for the rest of my life) but I feel like continuing my saving of life. meanwhile you uselessly ponder on whether i saved anything real at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:26:10 2012 No.2898141 >>2898136 >>2898139 lol crushed

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:27:10 2012 No.2898143 >>2898131 I don't think our conceptions of logic are compatible. Show me the logical calculus that allows one to infer that "others" do not exist. By rules of which logic do you think one has to accept this blasphemy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:27:10 2012 No.2898144 >>2898140 >not being an anti-natalist >2012 have fun prolonging the suffering of innocents, medfag

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:30:10 2012 No.2898150

>>2898143

my most certain knowledge is the content of my own mind—my thoughts, experiences, affects, etc.
there is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind (see the brain in a vat)
the experience of a given person is necessarily private to that person.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:30:46 2012 No.2898151

>>2898144
nigga have you even read the thread? i got bitches on my dick son. My truth is unquestionable. doesn't matter whether you think those bitches are really there, or whether they morally should be there, or whatever other meaningless, unprovable philosophical view you have. The bitches are STILL on my dick son and i am STILL rolling in green and happiness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:31:46 2012 No.2898153 >>2898151 0/10 >>>/reddit/

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:33:46 2012 No.2898156

>>2898143
different poster and not a solipsist, but from the wiki:

Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[2]
Nothing exists;
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:33:46 2012 No.2898157 >>2898153 >responds >gives me a 0/10 >so mad, he even responds almost as soon as i posted it >0/10 please child, the grown ups are talking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:33:46 2012 No.2898158 File: 2.13 MB, 1600x1000, DSNC0019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i just want a partner that loves me

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:33:46 2012 No.2898159 >>2898150 >he thinks he can be certain of the content of his own mind wow

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:34:46 2012 No.2898160 File: 21 KB, 632x680, 1331548581086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898157 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:34:46 2012 No.2898164 >>2898156 >>2898150 0/10 http://dis.4chan.org/derefer.php?url=http://reddit.com

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:34:46 2012 No.2898165 >>2898159 >most certain >certain pick one >/sci/ in charge of reading

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:35:46 2012 No.2898166 >>2898164 0/10 >>>/reddit/ stay mad tho :3

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:36:46 2012 No.2898168 >>2898160 lol, dis nigga keeps responding. so mad. enjoy your inferior life. just make sure you don't get in my way when I go to buy stock.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:38:43 2012 No.2898171 >>2898150 My thoughts, experiences, affects, etc. lead me inevitably to the conclusion that other minds exist. what now solipists

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:38:43 2012 No.2898173 >>2898168 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:38:44 2012 No.2898174 >>2898171 but dey dont

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:39:44 2012 No.2898175 >>2898173 >implying i can't do this all day, as i get to choose my own hours because superior studies

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:40:44 2012 No.2898178 >>2898174 i know my own mind fucker. they do solipism disproven

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:41:52 2012 No.2898180 >>2898150 You cannot explain physical information such as the concept of the wavelength of light with this analogy. You just add an additional layer of abstraction over it. It doesn't answer any questions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:42:52 2012 No.2898183 >>2898175 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:43:53 2012 No.2898184 >>2898178 you dont know what inevitably means :3333 u cant trust your senses :333333

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:44:53 2012 No.2898186 >>2898180 i don't need to explain them, they don't exist. i simply don't understand why this is so difficult for you guys. the dogmatics of scientism truly are worse than any fundamentalist religions

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:45:52 2012 No.2898187 >>2898183 >implying I care about the quality of this board, in which we shall keep bumping a shitty thread to the front page.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:46:52 2012 No.2898190 >>2898184 my thoughts inevitably lead me to the conclusion that I know what inevitably means, and then inevitably lead me to the conclusion that you are wrong suck my cock dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:47:52 2012 No.2898192 >>2898187 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:47:52 2012 No.2898194 >>2898190 mad and wrong at the same time, how fitting :3

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:47:52 2012 No.2898195

>>2898186
You add an additional layer of abstraction over it.

So what? Now you know the answer to some deep philosophical question. You're a brain in a vat.

How does what you can actually observe work? That's what I am asking. I am not asking if it is irrelevant for you to explain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:48:52 2012 No.2898198 >>2898192 >implying the bitches on my dick can't type for me if i ever get tired.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:48:52 2012 No.2898199 >>2898192 Tsk.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:49:52 2012 No.2898202 >>2898195 please articulate your question with more clarity. i know scibros are notoriously bad with language, but this is ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:49:52 2012 No.2898203 >>2898198 >>2898199 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:51:52 2012 No.2898205 >>2898203 >implying you're gonna win

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:52:52 2012 No.2898210 >>2898202 Expalin why a photon has wavelength.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:52:52 2012 No.2898212 >>2898205 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:53:53 2012 No.2898213 >>2898194 but i'm not mad or wrong I don't even exist, remember?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:53:53 2012 No.2898215 >>2898210 it doesn't. neither photons nor wavelengths exist. next question :3

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:54:53 2012 No.2898216 >>2898213 seriously though, solipism amounts to realism now suck my cock dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:54:53 2012 No.2898218 >>2898213 it a self-referential post. keep up

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:54:53 2012 No.2898219 >>2898215 You did not answer the question. You added an abstraction over it. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:55:52 2012 No.2898220 >>2898212 >implying i haven't already won

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:56:52 2012 No.2898223 >>2898219 lel. keep changing your definition of an answer if it makes you feel better but the burden of proof is on you

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:57:54 2012 No.2898224 >>2898220 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:57:54 2012 No.2898225 File: 112 KB, 432x300, Faulkner.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898220 >implying victory isn't an illusion of philosophers and fools

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:57:54 2012 No.2898226 >>2898224 >implying i belong in reddit

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 03:57:54 2012 No.2898228 >>2898223 If definitions refer to objective reality, they can be refined until there is absolute consensus (modulo trolls of course). An abstraction over objective reality (in your case solipsism) does not answer the question. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:08:55 2012 No.2898236 >>2898225 Faulkner has no idea about what he is talking about and should of just shot himself if he was so depressed and pessimistic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:15:57 2012 No.2898247 >>2898236 >Faulkner has no idea about what he is talking about prove it

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:17:57 2012 No.2898252 >>2898236 >should of Go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:22:57 2012 No.2898263 >>2898226 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:29:59 2012 No.2898277 >>2898228 lol you're an idiot. come back with an argument, /sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:30:59 2012 No.2898278 >>2898263 you think you're sneaky? I paid a nigga to watch this till it dies. You ain't got that kind of cash, humanities fag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:33:59 2012 No.2898280 >>2898278 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:35:00 2012 No.2898283 ITT: Pseudointellectual Starbucks Goers vs. Asperger STEM drones discussing two fields that really are one if they studied the scientific method and knew what fucking drawing conclusions and formulating theories are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:35:00 2012 No.2898284 >>2898277 You're the idiot. 0/10. It is also extremely redundant as you insist to argue that measurement is meaningless and babble on over ill-defined semantics. You cannot reason away phenomena with abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:37:59 2012 No.2898289 >>2898280 >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:38:59 2012 No.2898291 >>2898283 >thinks he has any idea what's going on you're cute, I like you a lot

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:39:59 2012 No.2898292 >>2898289 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:40:59 2012 No.2898295 >>2898292 not even gonna at least bump that 0 up to a 1? you're pretty unreasonable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:42:59 2012 No.2898301 >>2898284 you're yet to raise any points that I haven't countered immediately simply by re-stating my position, which would imply that you should perhaps learn what it is we're discussing before further embarrassing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:42:59 2012 No.2898303 >>2898295 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:45:02 2012 No.2898307 >>2898303 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:46:02 2012 No.2898310 >>2898307 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:48:02 2012 No.2898313 >>2898301 I have raised my point. Your philosophy is an abstraction of the observable. It does not explain the observable, it is simple a layer on top. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:49:04 2012 No.2898315 >>2898301 I have raised my point. Your philosophy is an abstraction of the observable. It does not explain the observable, it is simply a layer on top. Try again.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:49:04 2012 No.2898316

>>2898313
Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent. It's a false argument to require an explanation for anything observed. How are you this thick.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 04:59:00 2012 No.2898345 >>2898310 see that? wasn't even me. i hired that nigga. or atleast i might have, i got so many goons i lose count. this one was my last >>2898295

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 05:34:07 2012 No.2898413 >>2898316 >It's a false argument to require an explanation for anything observed. You just don't get it, do you?

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:24:14 2012 No.2898479

Interestingly enough, thanks to the recent rise in popularity of atheism, science is becoming a tool of religion, an atheist religion. These New Atheists are as fanatical as fanatics of any other religion, they do not listen to anyone but their priests (scientists) and their word is the word of God (Science) no matter how retarded it is.

Just ask a New Atheist to explain you why one should accept the theory of evolution. They will most likely say something like "WHAT ARE YOU, A CHRISTIAN? EVERYONE GET A LOAD OF THIS DUMBASS CHRISTIAN LOL. HE BELIEVES IN GOD! LMAO!"

I have a friend that's a New Atheist. Every time we discuss something even vaguely related to religion, he brings it up and immediately starts insulting religious people. Most of his arguments are "Religion is evil because crusades and they hate fags!".

To be frank, science is 100% worthless. Nothing that it's done has helped humanity in a meaningful way. Even the internet (that is more addicting than fucking crack) is completely useless in the end. All that it's good for is arguing about religion and watching porn. Both of those things are completely useless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:25:14 2012 No.2898482 >>2898345 0/10 >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:27:14 2012 No.2898485 >>2898413 Not him, but it seems that you don't get, actually.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:28:14 2012 No.2898487 File: 23 KB, 375x376, dubsguy14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898485 >you don't get

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:28:14 2012 No.2898488 >>2898479 I hope you don't get ill any time soon brah.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:30:14 2012 No.2898490 File: 430 KB, 890x383, dubsguy53.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898488 you stole my get you fucker

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:45:17 2012 No.2898509

>>2898488
I've been ill numerous times and I've never needed the help of "science", thanks to my hippie (not really) mother. Illness is not something that can only be cured by antibiotics or the like. It's unfortunate that people have forgotten this.

By the way, this is the most common reaction you get when you question the importance of science. New Atheism ministers must be proud.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:55:52 2012 No.2898526 >>2898509 >I've been ill numerous times and I've never needed the help of "science". Yeah, that's interesting. Mmhm, imagine if your leg get lopped off or you had brain cancer. Fuck medicine, throw some spells at the problem. hehe

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 06:58:52 2012 No.2898531 >>2898479 The internet's use in society is not derived from your direct enjoyment. The good it facilitates is indirect.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:03:53 2012 No.2898542

>>2898509
really? now think just for a second. Herbal remedys are still products of the scientific method as antibiotics. and do you know what antibiotics are? they are the active ingredients of herbal medicine isolated so as to increase efficiency. but honestly what mother figure would deny their kids medicine for fucks ske.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:10:54 2012 No.2898554

Philosophies use does not come from the answers it provides, for it offers none. When Hawking made this quote, if you've read the article in which it was published, was in the (previously historical) context of philosophy as a field that can generate knowledge. No one worth their salt would argue that science has not well and truly usurped that front.

Instead the good philosophy provides is a personal one that tends not to be appreciated nowadays. Partly because the ends for which people think philosophy works toward are something else (knowledge), and partly because the west is so preoccupied with a rationalism for which anything that doesn't serve some efficient progressive ascertainment of knowledge is deemed useless.

Bertrand Russel knows what's up: ""The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason."

tl;dr
Hawking meant philosophy as it was historically conceived as a source of knowledge is dead: see science for that
Philosophy is instead now about questioning conventional thought so that you can live your life autonomously

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:11:53 2012 No.2898555 >>2898554 >cont. Philosophy's* :O

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:11:53 2012 No.2898556 >Make up pretentious bullshit for a career >Get mad when real academics laugh at you. Silly Philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:11:53 2012 No.2898558 >>2898542 ignore the trolls mate, you'll be there all day!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:13:53 2012 No.2898560 >>2898554 Thank you!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:14:53 2012 No.2898562 >>2898560 your welcome :)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:31:55 2012 No.2898576 Physicists aren't experts at everything. When will people stop quoting Einstein's views on politics and religion? When will they stop quoting Hawking's views on philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:47:03 2012 No.2898594 >>2898556 >implying it wasn't just scifags mad in this thread silly generic STEM major #129383293

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:47:03 2012 No.2898596 >>2898554 this. /thread, gg chaps

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:48:03 2012 No.2898601 >>2898554 >>2898560 >>2898562 >>2898596 samefag further more that post was rubbish. stay uneducated

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 07:53:05 2012 No.2898605 >>2898601 wrong, wrong, wrong

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:10:07 2012 No.2898622

>>2898576
Philosopher's get so very mad when people from a real profession mock them. It's very sad. Hurr you don't understand is not a legitimate defence of your ridiculous subject any more than hurr you haven't studied homoeopathy is a defence of fake medicine.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:14:56 2012 No.2898626
File: 64 KB, 646x536, carl_sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

And now the thread turns into easy troll bait.
Was good while it lasted.

>>2898622
By the way are you the same guy from the /sci/ Swampman thread yesterday?
Congratulations if so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:20:55 2012 No.2898633 >/sci/fags come to /lit/ to troll >They get scared when they realize they might've CHOSEN THE WRONG PROFESSION!!!! Why do philosophers have the highest IQs on average, eh fags? Come at me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:22:57 2012 No.2898634 >>2898633 because god says so

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:23:57 2012 No.2898638 Best thread on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:25:57 2012 No.2898639 File: 125 KB, 457x375, 1339601518404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898633 because weed is a safe drug that doesn't affect a persons IQ

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:42:00 2012 No.2898657 File: 38 KB, 425x473, FU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This fucking thread, man

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:43:00 2012 No.2898660 Do you know what's kind of funny. Hawking probably 'thinks' in his computer voice. That'd be so annoying. I wonder when the transition took place, and how long it took, from his 'original voice to fade from memory in his mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:46:06 2012 No.2898663 >>>/sci/4965779

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:48:21 2012 No.2898665 >>2898663 Brilliant. Truly delightful.

Anonymous Mon Aug 13 08:52:20 2012 No.2898669
File: 32 KB, 301x316, 1334846020741.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just read this whole thing, scifags got told hard, then tried a reverse troll with with "LEL PHILOSOPHERS SO MAD" to which no one responded. Seems to me like it was the on anon arguing about 5 different philosophical positions that fucked science in the ass just for the lols. gg sci, we'll see you next time. hopefully you've done some reading in between then and now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 09:11:56 2012 No.2898686 >>2898669 give me the best point for pro hpilosophy, cbf reading thread that's holy shit ~250 posts long inb4 sex

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 09:23:28 2012 No.2898694 File: 438 KB, 500x376, 1338723856845.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898663 I laughed way too hard at this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 09:27:30 2012 No.2898700 File: 546 KB, 624x466, 1344821074742.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw no gf

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 09:37:31 2012 No.2898710 >>2897888 > philosophy of science Richard Feynman put this in a very elegant wording: >“Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. “

>>	Nicolas Cage !!4L3ydrPrJqa Mon Aug 13 09:51:32 2012 No.2898728 >>2898710 >implying ornithology wouldn't be damn useful to birds if they had society and self-awareness What the am for is human anatomy do?

>>	D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Mon Aug 13 10:14:42 2012 No.2898761 only one mention of feyerabend in the whole thread lol, fucking post 2011 /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 10:21:30 2012 No.2898768 >>2898482 >implying i can't be just as sneaky

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 10:27:29 2012 No.2898773 The view that science is valueless is an axiological position axiology is one of the three branches of philosophy

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 10:34:31 2012 No.2898784 File: 72 KB, 240x284, mr potato head listening to kanye west's stronger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >/sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 11:58:40 2012 No.2898899 Excellent thread. 10/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 13:38:51 2012 No.2899141 tl;dr

>>	Anonymous2235 Mon Aug 13 13:41:53 2012 No.2899148 File: 18 KB, 313x240, domo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >MFW this

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 13:42:53 2012 No.2899151 Just sage.

>>	Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ Mon Aug 13 13:43:54 2012 No.2899153 he's right in a way; real problems are no longer solved by philosophy. the job of philosophy today is simply to question if the problems we face are real problems; if how we approach a problem isn't already part of the problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 13:46:53 2012 No.2899158 >>2899153 but women and black people need our help

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 13:56:06 2012 No.2899186 >>2899153 >>no longer >>implying philosophy ever solved any problems, ever

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 13 14:00:06 2012 No.2899192 >>2899153 >>2899186 Philosophy is about finding the proper problems to solve

Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ Mon Aug 13 14:04:08 2012 No.2899198
File: 24 KB, 260x196, ludwig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2899186

never implied that it did, but for a long time abstract philosophy was the only bat on the field.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"

>>	Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ Mon Aug 13 14:11:25 2012 No.2899207 >>2899198 i guess religion was there too, even if it was a really flaccid bat. really more of a big mystical dildo.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature