[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 447x251, crystals_healing1237408030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790152 No.3790152 [Reply] [Original]

Philosophy is a pseudo-science.
Buddhism is superstitious mumbo jumbo.
New Age is for the mentally weak.

There, I have just discredited 80% of /lit/, because 80% of you have wasted a lot of time on this crockery.

>> No.3790162

If you had studies philosophy, you would've known that all time is wasted any way.

>> No.3790163
File: 13 KB, 350x441, hank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790163

>watch a one hour lecture on the state of astrophysics and science in general by an eminent pop scientist guy
>mfw he denounces ontology and metaphysics in the same sentences that he makes grandiose and completely retarded ontological and metaphysical claims
>mfw he tries to draw an ethical and social framework from a degraded, introjected, and childlike version of Enlightenment "progress" fetishism
>mfw scientists are babies with computers

>> No.3790164

Philosophy doesn't claim to be a science, pleb.

And saying something fails to be a science 'round these parts only validates it.

>> No.3790176

your math skills suck, and so do your perceptions. Philosophy makes up about a third (far too much, i agree, and Buddhism and new age are hardly ever mentioned. And the general consensus of most of /lit/ is in various stages of agreement with you.

>> No.3790177
File: 51 KB, 543x427, 1366864022073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790177

>>3790164
>And saying something fails to be a science 'round these parts only validates it.

Wow, you guys are troglodytes.

Continental truth LOL

>> No.3790243

>I have just discredited 80% of /lit/

You happy now?

>> No.3790262

Someone has claimed philosophy is a science?

>> No.3790266

>>3790262
Science is a philosophy

Modern science is a very bad philosophy

>> No.3790273

>>3790266

Other way around. I'm asking if anyone has claimed philosophy is a science.

>> No.3790285

>>3790273
that would make no sense, a science is a vaguely defined discipline following a set of general epistemological positions and focusing on a certain purview of the natural world, however defined. it is natural philosophy. philosophy being a science would be like saying "a mammal is a horse".

>> No.3790292

>>3790273
there's at least a thousand philosophies. and an infinite number of potential ones. inevitably, a lot of them (probably and infinite number) are going to be indistinguishable from science, Why not take them one at a time: "Is dialectical materialism the same thing as Molecular biology? No. Is it the same as Morphology? .... " you get the idea. Let me know how it turns out.

>> No.3790297

>>3790285

Okay.

So nobody has claimed that? I'm questioning what OP said here. Op said "Philosophy is a pseudo-science." Thus i am asking, Has anyone claimed philosophy is a science? Is the answer no? That is what i am asking.

>> No.3790321

>>3790297
no one can claim it bro

not with any rigor

>> No.3790322

>>3790285
>>3790292
>>3790297
Lol, you guys are time wasting dumbards.

"hey guys, let's ignore the valid thing OP said and discuss semantics at length".

Useless nimrods lol.

>> No.3790325

>>3790322

Be naic.

Although nobody wants to answer my question. It is a simple question.

>> No.3790336

>>3790322
look. if he wants to be taken seriously, lets see his raw data, and his criteria for decalring a thread to be about philosophy. The eighty percent seems inflated, nobody disputes that philosophy is a pseudo science since by definition it includes thousands of pseudosciences (hi Pythagoras!). And Buddhism? I see maybe one thread a week. I think OP hasn't done his research. And isn't Buddhism a philosophy?

>> No.3790349

>philosophy is a pseudo-science
It doesn't claim to be a science, so this is incorrect.
>Buddhism is superstitious mumbo-jumbo
Okay, then. That really tells us nothing. If it helps people's well-being and doesn't hurt anybody, why care?

>New Age is for the mentally weak

Got any scientific studies to back this up?

>> No.3790360

>>3790325
>>3790336
>>3790349
*shakes head*

Useless morons.

>> No.3790365

>>3790360

Why does no one want to answer my question?

Also, i am hungry.

>> No.3790366

>>3790360
No one has claimed philosophy was a science. You're arguing a non-existent polemic.

>> No.3790370

>>3790360
typical /sci/mpleton. claims to be arguing in the name of science, yet uses absolutely no science in his argument.

>> No.3790373

>>3790152
I'll simply ask you to prove to me out of doubt, using a logical argumentative approach, without resorting to the use of logical fallacies or sophisms, that philosophy "wishes" to be a science, and how it fails to do so.

If, by pseudo-science, you didn't mean that philosophy actually intended to be understood as a science but you only wanted to point out a prejudice you had against philosophy and its study, which consisted mostly in doubting the relevance of philosophy, then I will ask you to prove to me out of doubt, using a logical argumentative approach, without resorting to the use of logical fallacies or sophisms, that philosophy is irrelevant.

If you cannot produce any valid argument nor any argument that I won't be able to prove wrong in less than five sentences, you shall be asked to leave this board and never come back.

>> No.3790383

>>3790360
yeah, maybe, but you're arguing with morons, and you've lost every single point. Also, did you really have a question? and do you stand behind that eighty percent? You're coming across as a bit butthurt on it. Don't think I'm trolling you though: completely sincere.

>> No.3790387

>>3790152
lemme stop you right there faggot
>philosophy is a pseudo-science
philosophy isnt even a science, it never was and never will be, so calling it a pseudo-science in an attempt to discredit it makes no sense
>Buddhism is superstitious mumbo jumbo
try reading the non-religious parts
>New Age is for the mentally weak
this I agree with 100% op
>80% of /lit/
ok now youre just pulling numbers out of your ass

>> No.3790388

>>3790373
>tfw too lazy to prove philosophy wrong using kantian empirism but it would be hilarious

>> No.3790394

>>3790373
>implying OP is not a troll and will even try to prove his opinion using arguments
this is 4chan m8, not an irl debate

>> No.3790396

>>3790373
a pseudo-science is a thing that might be perceived as, or treated as, a science, but does not actually possess the essential characteristics of one. It's like a pseudo antennule on a caterpillar. Nothing derogatory is intended unless it's claimed to be a science. as an example, Lysenkoism is a pseudoscience in the bad way, and a lot of economic theories are pseudosciences in the neutral way, since they use the tools of science, but not the rigor or aims.

>> No.3790404

>>3790396
But philosophy is not perceived or treated as a science, does not possess the essential characteristics of one.

>> No.3790410

>>3790273
It's because you people have no idea what philosophy actually is. You seem to be under the impression that philosophy is a "life guide".

>> No.3790414

>>3790404
but a lot of them are pseudo scientific, at least in retrospect. Pythagoreanism for example. This is no more an indictment of them than saying that alchemy and phlogiston chemistry are pseudosciences today. It's just that hindsight makes them so now, and anyone who still pursues them, in contravention of more recent discoveries, is a pseudoscientist.

>> No.3790415

Science, as we know it, is a result of epistemological theories developed by philosophers.

>> No.3790418

>>3790404
Philosophy is perceived and often treated as a methodology to retrieve and understand truth and the world around us. In this respect it is a psuedo-science, because science is a methodology that helps retrieve an understanding of truth and the world, but continental philosophy unlike science, is comprised of faulty methodologies for dickbrains to project a false sense of wisdom.

There you go idiots. Carry on being utterly buttdevasted.

>> No.3790419

>>3790404
Also "philosophy" is not a thing: there are as previously pointed out, potentially millions of them. many of which must necessarily contradict one another. Saying Philosophy believes or says something is like saying Religion does.

>> No.3790426

>>3790418
Define 'truth'

>> No.3790429

>>3790426
Get a job.

>> No.3790430

>OP doesnt know shit about philosophy
>Rest of posters don't know shit about science

">mfw scientists are babies with computers"
this is the definition of stupidity.

>> No.3790439

>>3790419
"Philosophy" is a thing. It explores and gives answers to roughly the same questions. The different philosophies are the different answers given.

>> No.3790443
File: 221 KB, 500x506, 1331245642580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790443

>>3790152
>New Age is for the mentally weak.
It's okay, some people take a bit longer to accept the truth. Clearly you haven't leveled up your Chakras enough to understand it right now.

>> No.3790444

>>3790430
>I DECLARE MYSELF SUPERIOR
Read the thread next time.

>> No.3790447

>Philosophy is a pseudo-science.
Not really. However, postmodernism is absolute garbage, and a lot of the philosophers discussed here write nothing but shit.
>Buddhism is superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Eh, no. Clearly you don't know what buddhism is, and there are many different kinds of buddhism.
>New Age is for the mentally weak.
Not necessarily for the mentally weak but for the ignorant, definitely.

This board is certainly filled with its fair share of irrational morons. I'm always surprised to see the kind of shit that is defended in here, and the kind of nonsense that is tolerated and somehow looked upon as deep philosophical stuff when in reality it's just complete nonsense.

>> No.3790454

>>3790418
again. there's no such animal as "philosophy" saying philosophy does something is like saying "animals are cute and fuzzy" What does philosophy say about grapes, for instance?

Here' here is a continental philosophy, promulgated by me, the most important continental philosopher of the last thousand years.

the tenets are: anyone who challenges my claims are just a bunch of butthurt faggots

all sciences are valid views of the universe.

many pies are delicious.

many apples are red at some point in their existence.

it sucks when your foot catches on fire.

I doubt many people would dispute most of my claims, and the others are arguable.

see? one philosophy (and promulgated by the most important continental philosopher of the last millennium, no less) agrees completely with science.

>> No.3790460
File: 40 KB, 447x508, 1366638544768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790460

>>3790454
>Gets utterly discredited and destroyed with pure logic and reason
>Tries to argue semantics to save face

LOL

>> No.3790473

>>3790460
read the first tenet bro. also, where is there an argument on semantics? I agree entirely with OP on semantics. and he better agree with mine or else, well, tenet one.

>> No.3790477

>>3790387
>try reading the non-religious parts
Do you even know what you're talking about? If by non-religious parts, you mean writings of stephen batchlers/new age groups, then go right ahead. All sutras are religious. It may not be about worshiping Jesus Christ, but its still religious.

>> No.3790479

>>3790410

I haven't indicated any understanding at all. I've claimed nothing. The only thing i am doing; the only thing i've done in this thread is ask, "Has anyone claimed that philosophy is a science?"

>> No.3790480
File: 32 KB, 403x374, 541134_285455561586328_1336646931_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790480

Lol, people studying philosophy have a serious problem with doublethinking.

Almost like...yes, exactly like people who follow a religion!

LOLOLOLOOLOLOL

>> No.3790487

actually responding to this thread

this is not /lit/ I know

this is a /sci/autism raid

>> No.3790494

>>3790487
/sci/entists don't instigate the art vs. science threads. If you actually go to /sci/, they're actually quite accepting of it. This is just some sperglord who probably lurks /sci/ intermittently.

>> No.3790496

Wait a minute. Do they do forced anon on lit? Is it possible to tripfag here?

>> No.3790498

>>3790426
Unforgetting.

>>3790418
Absolutely false, this perception, as someone pointed out before, would only be valid if you acknowledged empirism and wanted to argue that philosophy was a pseudo-science because most kantian subjects perceive it as a science. However, to prove philosophy wrong like this, you would have to agree with philosophy and its discussion ethics (see Karl-Otto-Apel), thus disproving your own argument: proving philosophy wrong by using empirism is impossible since philosophy then becomes unsurpassable, just like if you tried to argue that argumentation is wrong.

Also, continental philosophy's search for truth is at the opposite of science (Heidegger, Holzwege) since the search for truth has to be made by unveiling the Being, something science fails to achieve, since it seeks to understand the Being-there.

>> No.3790507

>>3790498

Answers that question.

>> No.3790509

>>3790152

Okay, let's start over.

Has anyone claimed that philosophy is a science?

>> No.3790512

>>3790509
OP's argument was (if I'm not mistaken) that it is often perceived as such, not that philosophers claim to be scientifics.

>> No.3790518

>>3790512
Then the argument is retarded, because the premise is utterly fictitious. I've never heard ANYONE claim that philosophy was science, OR that it had the semblance of one. Someone's got a bee in their bonnet, namely OP.

>> No.3790520

lit pls stop.

let this thread walk its path to the 10th page.

>> No.3790521

>>3790498
>gets ass handed to him with pure logic and reason that is perfectly sound and comprehensible
>Retort with read herrings and semantics to save face.

Wow, what a dumb fuck lol.

>> No.3790526

>>3790521
The argument is based on semantics, you dumb fuck.

>> No.3790529

>>3790509
For arguments to be valid they are subjected to testing and rigorous proofs. In that sense it is a science in the way of finding their truth.

>> No.3790532

>>3790512

Well perhaps, but that is why i am asking if anyone has said it.

>>3790518

Okay. There's my answer. Thank you.

>I've never heard ANYONE claim that philosophy was science.

Why was that so hard?

>> No.3790534

Science is ridiculously difficult to define. In modern parlance, it refers to the scientific fields we all know, i.e., biology/ chemistry/ physics/ comp sci etc.

However, the etymology of 'science' is 'scientia', which simply means 'knowledge'. Science merely means the pursuit of knowledge, which, of course, applies to EVERYTHING.

>> No.3790536

>>3790518
No, it is retarded because it relies on the acceptation of kantian empirism, thus the acceptation of philosophy, thus OP is wrong by contradiction.

>>3790521
But you didn't use logic and I used terms as simple as possible. I'll try to make it even more simple, using greentext.

>You say philosophy is wrong because many perceive it as a science and it doesn't have good scientific methods
>You thus base your understanding of the understanding of philosophy on kantian empirism (feel free to read the wikipedia page on this subject if you don't know what it is)
>Kantian empirism is philosophy
>To prove philosophy wrong using your opinion, you must agree with philosophy
>You agree with philosophy
>Your argument is a contradiction
>You are wrong

Anyway, the term pseudo-science is polysemic; your argument relies entirely on a semantic mistake and a contradiction.

>> No.3790539

>>3790529
see the second part of >>3790498, about truth.

>> No.3790540

>>3790152
>Philosophy is a pseudo-science.
I know this is a poor attempt at trolling. But I find it funny how there's people irl who think this.
Guys, listen here, to be a pseudo-science it must be attempting to be a science. And philosophy isn't. It's very simple, isn't it?
>Buddhism is superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Well, this can be applied to every religion ever. But Buddhism has its philosophical/ethical part which can be totally separated from the religious/superstitious one (unlike most of the other religions).
>New Age is for the mentally weak.
Well, this is true. Nobody argued the contrary.
>There, I have just discredited 80% of /lit/, because 80% of you have wasted a lot of time on this crockery.
Kill yerself. Seriously.

>> No.3790543
File: 1.50 MB, 230x172, 1368960594286.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790543

>>3790536
>You thus base your understanding of the understanding of philosophy on kantian empirism

Uh, but I don't you retard.

Stay ignorant with your astrology-tier understand of the world. You good-for-nothing do-nothing faggot.

>> No.3790544

>>3790526
no, it's based on statistics. The propositions have semantic elements, but the argument is "I've just disproved eighty percent of /lit/" I agree with all the statements, in modified form, but it doesn't follow that eighty percent of /lit/ disagrees with them, and all you really did was state it, you din't offer proofs. so. really, what needs to be offered are:

some indication that the statements, whether true or not, are believed by at least eighty percent of /lit/ or at least that eighty percent of us have wasted a "lot" of time on them. and that that time, being wasted, either in supporting or opposing the statements, in someway discredits us. otherwise: well, tenet one.

>> No.3790546

>>3790543
You do, even if you don't want to.
If you use a pythagoras theorem without knowing you're doing so, you're still doing it, even if you're uneducated and stupid.

>> No.3790547

>>3790546
#shotsfired

>> No.3790551

i am here too

>> No.3790552

>>3790152
>mfw this thread is becoming an aristocracy vs. proletariat fight and aristocracy is winning

Stay uneducated, proles, while I chill with my friends Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein.

>> No.3790553

>>3790543
Why the fuck are you even here? Why instigate an argument against a proposition which no one ever stated? It's not up for debate.

>> No.3790556
File: 9 KB, 315x292, 1363105519869.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790556

>>3790546
Riiiiiight.

Can your magic hoodoo philosophy tell me my fortune? I'll give you a buck or something. You look like you desperately need it.

>> No.3790559

>>3790556
You seriously got told mate. Just accept it and move on, read a bit about philosophy and come back, we'll all agree to argue with you again if you bring something new.

>> No.3790564

thread over guys

nothing to see here

>> No.3790566
File: 90 KB, 250x249, Thomas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790566

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4XXHaaiBA0

This is every single "philosopher" in this thread (minus the wife/gf). Stop masturbating so much and get a job.

>> No.3790575
File: 107 KB, 1582x1526, well.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790575

>>3790566
Jesus Christ, you're so mad.

>> No.3790570

>>3790566
lmao nice 4th grade argument

>> No.3790571

>>3790566
pls leave OP you're on the peaks of ridicule

>> No.3790572

>>3790539
Meditation is called the science of the mind--barring the implications the word 'science' brings. Look at Vipassana, the Buddha's technique of achieving and reaching the observer--Vipassana literally means 'come and see'; see for yourself the nature of things. Einstein pointed this out quite well, he pointed out that there must be a universal way, indiscriminate of size, gender and all these divisions, to achieve 'God' and I use that interchangeably with universe and the observer.

>> No.3790576

>>3790566
>tfw feel bad for that guy who got humiliated by /lit/

>> No.3790578

>>3790566
>Dat literary lifestyle
A true patrician.

>> No.3790583

I feel bad, right now this guy must be thinking he trolled /lit/ hard, while everyone else knows he got humiliated and feels either sorry for him or are disgusted by him. This is one of the shittiest things about 4chan.

>> No.3790593
File: 1.22 MB, 256x169, 1369454847959.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790593

>>3790570
>>3790571
>>3790572
>>3790575
>>3790576
Lol guys, you've thoroughly demonstrated that you rely on semantics so as to thinly veneer the fact that you are too stupid to pursue truth using the most viable methodologies, i.e. science.

Useless rejects of society, all of you. lol.

>> No.3790597
File: 80 KB, 170x207, Shigdoggy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790597

>>3790593
Holy shit, stop, please, you're killing me.

>> No.3790602
File: 28 KB, 401x400, 1367186014654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790602

>>3790597

>> No.3790608
File: 11 KB, 470x454, Hmmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790608

>>3790593
>you rely on semantics

No.
That was you.
In starting this thread.

>> No.3790620

>>3790593
>>3790602
Someone said it before, but today wasn't your day, you got proven wrong; it happens to everyone (me too; I remember in particular a lenghty argument on /mu/ about Schubert), just leave and read a bit about the subject, gather information about methodology in science and in philosophy, the differences, construct a valid and strong basis and defence for your arguments, post it as a long block of text and we will happily argue with you for hours about it, as long as you agree to respect discussion and argumentation ethics.

Good day.

>> No.3790624
File: 54 KB, 680x451, Honkers gonna honk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790624

>>3790620
All German Romanticism is shit, except for Lieder.

>> No.3790626

>>3790593
oh my god the butthurt in this post! are you actually crying while you type?

>> No.3790630

>>3790624
The argument was about his symphonies; which ones were romantic and which ones were classical.

Also, Mendelssohn isn't shit, mate.

>> No.3790634

Can someone explain to me why, when an argument descends ( or ascends ) to the level of semantics--a.k.a etymology--there seems to be a common perception that the arguments are going to be fruitless in the end or that it is not of worth to pursue..

>> No.3790637

>>3790634
The argument was fruitless to begin with, because the argument was entirely wrought in semantics.

>> No.3790638

>>3790447
>postmodernism is absolute garbage

lol get a load of this idiot.

>> No.3790639
File: 36 KB, 701x566, 1368576843973.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790639

>>3790608
>>3790620
>>3790624
>>3790626
>>3790630

>> No.3790640

>>3790639
>I t-trolled you guys, haha r-right?

>> No.3790642

>>3790630
It's too aggressive, and homophonically dense, for me. I prefer thinner orchestration, but a lot of polyphony. Probably why I like Baroque the most. Purcell is the shit.

French Impressionism is bretty gud. I wish I could play the Jeux d'Eau, but my hands are too small ;_;

>> No.3790645
File: 465 KB, 245x118, 1364662928601.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790645

>>3790640

>> No.3790646

>>3790637
And what do you mean? What does it mean if the argument is 'wrought in semantics'?

Does that mean that we shouldn't assess the arguments or? Am questioning the apparently negative connotation whenever someone brings up 'this is just semantics so its a waste of time'.

>> No.3790657

>>3790646
What I mean is: the argument was idiotic, because it was based entirely on the false definition of the word 'science'. OP didn't understand what science was, meaning the argument was incorrect to begin with. Also, the counter-claim that philosophy was science was never posited, making the whole endeavour worthless.

>> No.3790659
File: 13 KB, 220x289, gesualdo1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790659

>>3790642
But what about his Hebrides overture?

Do you like Gesualdo?

>> No.3790662

Science is a pseudo-philosophy.

>> No.3790663

>>3790657
Okay that clears it up. Therefore it would be a time waster to correct the OP's meaning of 'science'. So the dictionary has final word on this no?

Someone should have asked him to define it.

>> No.3790665
File: 189 KB, 404x358, raped.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790665

>>3790662
Don't you fucking start this thread all over again.

>> No.3790667
File: 486 KB, 300x169, 9x8G2W0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790667

>Waahhhh I'm in denial about me wasting thousands of dollars on a subject based in hocus pocus

It's like you guys are really in hogwarts. LOL

>> No.3790668

Pseudo is a philosophy-science.

>> No.3790671

>>3790668
Is pseudo-science a philosophy ?

>> No.3790674

>>3790671
A is pseudo philosophy-science.

>> No.3790675

>>3790674
Pseudo is a philosophy sicence.

>> No.3790677

>>3790674
Is a science philosophy pseudo?

>> No.3790679

>>3790659
The low strings are just too heavy-sounding for me. I like the woodwind melody. It's got a delicate folk feel, but it's being undermined by the persistent string figures which underpin the whole thing.

Yes, but not as much as Telemann

>> No.3790680
File: 105 KB, 640x480, Autism Moms.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790680

>>3790668
>>3790671
>>3790674

>> No.3790682

>>3790679
>Telemann

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQatlvFvGdM

>> No.3790683

>>3790679
Incidentally, I discovered Caldara last year. His passacaglia is just so perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u0oTevVCs

>> No.3790686

>>3790682
I love recorder virtuosi. They really are wonderful; I'm mostly familiar with his trio sonatas, though. Oh, and Corelli's.

>> No.3790736

>tfw tallis is 18 and knows more about philosophy, literature and music than me and I'm older
>tfw too lazy to learn
>tfw

>> No.3790815
File: 30 KB, 354x480, rYRhl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3790815

Don't you find it ironic that the jerk offs in this thread defending continental philosophy deliberately stagnate progress (i.e. delaying its inevitable demise) through sophistry, semantics, and circular reasoning?

It's almost like...wait! It's exactly like religion!!!

>> No.3790857

>stop thinking what I don't think

>> No.3790865

>>3790152
do you like Zen?