/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4598438]

In your opinion, what do you think are the reasons philosophy died in the 19th century?

[Anonymous No.4598442]

It didn't. Sartre was a 20th century philosopher, for instance.

Noam Chomsky too.

[Anonymous No.4598443]

>>4598442
Out of all the philosophers of the 20th century you chose Sartre

[Anonymous No.4598446]

>>4598442
>Noam Chomsky

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4598477]

Isn't it merging with science?

[Anonymous No.4598500]

>>4598477
>Dennett
>talking about science

That's like a creationist talking about evolution. What are you doing to my sides?

[Anonymous No.4598512]

>>4598438

Have you told your parents you're gay yet?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4598517]

>>4598500
That seems to be his job more or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

[Anonymous No.4598518]

>>4598442
Also Quine.

[Anonymous No.4598522]

>>4598517
Being anti-science is a job now?

[Alfonso No.4598638]

>>4598438
Half of your face is dead, Hueking

[Anonymous No.4598691]

>>4598438
the analytic-synthetic dichotomy in epistemology established by the german relativists and nihilists.

[Anonymous No.4598699]

>>4598438
With the progress of science and technology it is not needed.

[Anonymous No.4598755]

>>4598699

[Anonymous No.4598768]

>>4598755
If I put it like this then. The people who would become philosophers became something else because of the progress of science and technology.

[Anonymous No.4598814]

Well, I would say it's because of the introduction of Hegelianism, which basically said "it's okay: you can break all the rules and not worry about logic". Continentalism was the disease that decommissioned philosophy from the 1810s to the 1890s, when Analytic philosophy valiantly rebelled against the prevailing dogma of impreciseness and ideological obsession. Make no mistake, though: philosophy is today alive and well, and I have no reason to believe Analytic philosophy won't have a golden age again, as it did from the 1910s to the 1960s.

[Anonymous No.4598824]

>>4598442

Sartre wasn't a philosopher. He was a failed poet who felt the need to put on heirs of intellectualism and "research" to feel good about himself. Do not be fooled: Continental "philosophy" is just a fart of intellectual arrogance which arrogantly refers to itself as philosophy. There was no historical precedence in the history of philosophy for Hegelianism. Analytics are the true heirs of the tradition.

[Anonymous No.4598850]

>>4598755

Is that Gonzalo Rubalcaba?

[Anonymous No.4598858]

Philosophy did not die in the 19th century and if you think that you're an idiot.

I'll ignore the deluded ramblings of people who view analytic philosophy as the mythical heroic world-founding endeavor of god-heroes struggling against the insidious and deadly evil of CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY, rather than as an interesting philosophical tradition, and leave it at that. Fucking history of philosophy as written by Sax Rohmer itt, jesus christ people.

[Anonymous No.4598878]

>>4598824
>felt the need to put on heirs of intellectualism

kinda like you, huh?

[Anonymous No.4598911]

>>4598824
Go to bed Camus

[Anonymous No.4598916]

ONLY ZIZEK CAN SAVE US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.4598942]

Science cannot comprehend the Realm of Ideas.

[Anonymous No.4598976]

>>4598878

I guess it depends on your point of view.

>>4598911

Camus is even worse.

[Anonymous No.4598983]

Wittgenstein demonstrated the linguistic walls which guided analytics and logic, Kierkegaard/Nietzsche/Camus shot down the notion of objective ethics, and John Cage killed aesthetics.

Basically, the outside-looking-in perspective that I've reached is that several people in a short period of time walked into a room, concluded that the conversation was going in circles to avoid stating the obvious, and they decided to end it in favor of striking up a new one. The obvious result was a public acceptance in academic circles, but underlying understanding that their jobs were reliant upon the perception of viability and continued progress ended up pushing them to train a generation of maintenance workers to keep the myth of the machine alive.

[Anonymous No.4598985]

Hawking's statement is rather silly.

His modernistic method of sciences itself pushes forward or rather is based on a previously established philosophy.

How can philosophy be dead if his statement itself relies on a presupposed philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.4598986]

>>4598438

Op's incapacity to understand any human knowledge is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4598999]

>>4598858

I wouldn't call Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege god-heroes, however, I would call them the issuers-in of an entirely new - and, in my view, superior - way of doing philosophy. Surely this is worthy of great praise.

[Anonymous No.4599005]

>>4598986

And rather than incapacity, refusal.
Like a son hating on a father as he recognizes him in himself.

[Anonymous No.4599020]

>>4598824
haven't used green text in a while but I've realised there's nothing to say to people like you so I may as well just have some fun:

>being one of those "souper straightforward" guys who disregard continental philosophy as "all nonsense."
Sux2b trapped in the few steps too late starting point of western philosophy brah

[Anonymous No.4599030]

>>4599005

That's rather projective.

>>4598986

That shows you got a bit mad.

[Anonymous No.4599041]

>>4598824
I hate to speak generally, but all the people I knew in the philosophy department at college were, at the end of the day, creative writing majors who hid behind the veil of political activism because they had too much pride to practice or were paralyzed with fear of repeating what somebody else had already said. Which they would have done and probably had done in their freshman efforts. Just like everybody. People saying they want to be individuals but in mortal fucking terror of actually achieving such.

>implying philosophy isn't the cleverly disguised nest of failed poets

[Anonymous No.4599086]

So you people do realize that the mantle of philosophy isn't carried by just a handful of "enlightened thinkers", right? It's absurd to just accept what a few high-profile intellectuals say on a topic as the definitive word and then treat the whole problem as obviously solved. Smart people sometimes say ridiculous things too, you're allowed to argue against them.

I see (especially on this board) this bigger emphasis on what particular intellectuals say about a problem rather than on the problem itself. I think this is possibly due to some people conflating philosophy literature; people sometimes attribute to authors this kind of mystical seer status where they are in tune with something about the human race or reality with which the rest of us non-artists are not. Philosophers are not like that. Anyone (properly informed, educated, etc.) has the right to argue with a philosopher, no one has a privileged status of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4599099]

>>4599086
I think it's partly a phenomenon of the board - we tend to fall very easily into Great Man type of stuff in general across all fields, where what we're talking about is specific people and their stature and the really central question is whether or not they were Great. Which I think is a really bad and unfortunate approach.

I also think in this specific instance there's the problem that there's a lot of people who really just do disagree with you (seemingly linked with people who are very invested in analytic philosophy). I mean, I've argued with people on here who've said that philosophy is a field that's technical and built on expertise and specialized knowledge in precisely the same way as science is, and if you don't have specialist training in philosophy you should not talk about it. Which, again, I think is dumb, but when you have people saying that, it's going to affect how things are talked about.

[Anonymous No.4599101]

>>4599086
Tell that to a fucking philosopher.

[Anonymous No.4599103]

>>4599086
That's a very Socratic attitude towards philosophy.

I sort of wish we had a modern day Socrates, who would just go around and troll the shit out of people by asking questions about their underlying assumptions. Dawkins and some of the other New Atheists come the closest to that (and I appreciate their work despite being a Christian), but it's not quite the same thing.

[Anonymous No.4599156]

>>4598438
Philosophy is still alive. Philosophers have been eclipsed by physicists in terms of popularity. This is why we are currently seeing these comments thrown at philosophy departments.

[Anonymous No.4599208]

>>4599099
I think you certainly do need some technical expertise (at very least, some logical handle and familiarity with the technical terms used in the discussion) but that in no way implies you need specialist training in philosophy to discuss certain issues. There's a fine line between preserving quality of discussion (which I think maybe those people you argued with have in mind) and outright elitism. I think philosophy is (or should be) analogous to science in respects of rigor, but philosophy is definitely not the stage-by-stage build up of concepts that science is - after a certain point anyone can follow any discussion and can contribute to a debate in some way.

[Anonymous No.4599943]

>>4599041

I hate to speak generally, but I can 100% guarantee you that they were all Continentals.

[Anonymous No.4599969]

>>4598824
I don't like continentalists either, but they're still philosophers. Just generally shitty ones.

[Anonymous No.4599980]

>>4598983
>John Cage
>philosopher
Ah, yes, and Mozart wrote the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.4600002]

I think it is less that philosophy died more so that actual philosophers became less relevant

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4600053]

>>4600002
Because a whole line of questions they like to ask just went up in a puff of logic.

And anything I've heard from Dennett never struck me as anti-science. How is he anti-science?

[Anonymous No.4600241]

>>4600053
>How is he anti-science?

He denies the hard problem of consciousness just like creationists deny evolution. Science doesn't follow your beliefs. Consciousness happens and requires explanation, irregardless of whether this hurts Dennett's feelings.

[Anonymous No.4600265]

>>4600241
>irregardless

[Anonymous No.4600280]

>>4600241
How is proposing a solution to the hard problem of consciousness denying it?

>Guys what's 2 + 2
>I think it's 4
>WHAT THE FUCK DUDE DON'T DENY THIS PROBLEM LOOK ITS REAL OKAY IT'S REAL

Like, what kind of explanation do you expect to find to said hard problem, a logical proof?

[Anonymous No.4600287]

>>4600280
He does not propose a solution. "Hurr durr I can't explain it, therefore it doesn't real" is a childish and anti-scientific attitude. It adds nothing of value and doesn't solve the problem.

>Like, what kind of explanation do you expect to find to said hard problem
How about a scientifically testable mechanism?

[Anonymous No.4600308]

>>4598438
It didn't.

[Anonymous No.4600309]

>>4600241

>Consciousness happens and requires explanation

Maybe why the title of one of Dennett's books is 'Consciousness Explained"

>b-but he didn't explain anything! he j-just explained it AWAT!

in the same way that folk mythology explanations for all kinds of phenomena have been "explained away" by an increased understanding of the causes of said phenomena.

[Anonymous No.4600321]

>>4600309
Dan Dennett explained once that people hate having magic taken away from them. Pathetic, but, true.

[Anonymous No.4600324]

>>4600309
>Maybe why the title of one of Dennett's books is 'Consciousness Explained"
A more appropriate name for his book would be "consciousness denied".

>by an increased understanding of the causes of said phenomena.
But he never proposes a cause. He never proposes a mechanism. He outright denies the phenomenon of subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.4600333]

>>4600321
That's his main problem. He is fighting a straw man. Literally his only "argument" (read: fallacy) is "if you believe in qualia, your a dualist and dualism is bad because I say so!!!" No, I am not a dualist just because I acknowledge that my subjective experience requires scientific explanation.

[Anonymous No.4600346]

Everyone stop arguing and tell me what Dennet's solution to hard problem is?

[Anonymous No.4600354]

>>4600346
His solution is to close his eyes and ignore it.

[Anonymous No.4600358]

>>4600333
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.4600361]

>>4600333
So your biased views on your own actions is proof above neuroscience? Epistomology isn't THAT forgiving

[Anonymous No.4600366]

>>4600361
I am defending neuroscience against Dennett's anti-scientific antics, you dumbfuck. Consciousness is a very important topic and needs to be researched, even if that hurts his feelings.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4600378]

>>4600346
Four. According to anon.

I must say, I'm not convinced that he's anti-science at all.

[Anonymous No.4600381]

>>4600366
Fuck off faggot. Neuroscience does the same thing Dennett does. Break the hard problem into simple, solvable ones.

[Anonymous No.4600384]

Someone tell me why we're not just small parts of a huge, unstoppable and predictable chain of chemical reactions, and what conscience is.

[Anonymous No.4600385]

>>4600366
No need to be upset man it's ruining the discussion

[Anonymous No.4600391]

>>4600384
People who simply don't understand how the brain works thinks its all so mystifying when it isn't. Anyone who's taken bottom level programming will find its easy

[Anonymous No.4600394]

>>4600384
Philosophers are upset science is eating their turf again. You won't find your answer here.

[Anonymous No.4600395]

>>4600346

he doesn't offer a solution, as he doesn't believe there is any such problem. he chips away at some of the concepts, like qualia, that at first blush seem to pose a problem but, when pushed and prodded a bit, seem to dissolve.

>>4600324
he's not denying subjective experience. he's denying the existence of a special property over and above the physical processes that make up that experience.

And he has posed his own theories on what consciousness actually "is." By his telling, it's just a user interface, a lot like the destop OS you're using right now to access the internet and post on this board.

[Anonymous No.4600399]

>>4600381
>Neuroscience does the same thing Dennett does
There is a huge difference between neuroscientific research and a philosotard spouting fallacies because he emotionally dislikes certain facts. In fact these are polar opposites. Neuroscience researches consciousness. Dennett denies consciousness. In his anti-scientific ramblings the mutual hatred between science and philosophy reaches its purest form. Dennett is to neuroscience what creationists are to evolution.

[Anonymous No.4600402]

>>4600395
That's because once you break into small bits, the hard problem is no longer hard. Breaking into little bits changes its quality, and it can't be added back together to form a hard problem again.

[Anonymous No.4600408]

>>4600395
He fails to propose a testable mechanism. All his ramblings are no different from the fecal smearings of a toddler. If he is lacking the intelligence to talk about science, then he should just shut his ignorant face.

[Anonymous No.4600411]

>>4600402
Please demonstrate how solving the "soft" problems will resolve the "hard" problem. Please explain scientifically and without resorting to philosophically talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.4600415]

>>4600399
>>4600408

troll verified.

what's the mechanism that chalmer's proposes, again?

[Anonymous No.4600417]

>>4600399
>I can't read good.

Don't be so hard on yourself. To make the context of the post clearer, since reading beyond one post in isolation seems difficult for you:

On this one issue, Dennett takes the stance most neuroscience does.

[Anonymous No.4600418]

>>4600395
What is the mechanism behind subjective experience? How does it arise from neuronal interaction? How can this be tested?

[Anonymous No.4600420]

>>4600411

how about you explain what makes the "hard problem" so very, very difficult?

stick to your own criteria ("scientific" explanation, no philosophy mumbo-jumbo)

[Anonymous No.4600427]

>>4600366
>>4600333
>>4600287
>>4600241
>>4600399
>>4600408

This is the /sci/ troll trolling, or rather, exposing his anti-intellectualism, again. Don't feed him.

[Anonymous No.4600430]

>>4600415
Don't resort to straw men, asshole. I did never say Chalmers is better. I am merely pointing out how retarded and anti-scientific Dennett's stance is. Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation. You cannot deny this.

[Anonymous No.4600433]

>>4600430
>Subjective experience happens

prove it

[Anonymous No.4600434]

>>4600417
>Dennett takes the stance most neuroscience does.

No, he does not. Neuroscientists do not deny facts.Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation.

[Anonymous No.4600438]

>>4600430
>You cannot deny this.

[Anonymous No.4600440]

>>4600427
Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation. Propose a mechanism or GTFO.

>>4600420
How about you use the fucking google? I ain't gonna spoonfeed you.

[Anonymous No.4600443]

>>4600427
It might be trolling. It might not be. There's a lot of people who actually hold this view.

In any case, there's no real downside to responding calmly to this troll. What's the worse that can happen? Some misinformed people who aren't the troll are informed of an actual issue?

[Anonymous No.4600448]

>>4600443
>There's a lot of people who actually hold this view.

There are a lot of people who have subjective experience? Wow, what an insight.

[Anonymous No.4600452]

>>4600443
What is the mechanism behind subjective experience? How does it arise from neuronal interaction? How can this be tested?

[Anonymous No.4600454]

>>4600434
>>4600430

Dennett doesn't deny that it requires a scientific explanation. Quite the opposite, that's the only kind of explanation that can be given.

Again, he's denying that such experience is attributable to the existence of special properties, like qualia. All that means is that we need to look elsewhere.

>>4600440

Give me the name of someone you thinks provides an adequate explanation, or at least is pointing us in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.4600456]

>>4600454
>Give me the name of someone you thinks provides an adequate explanation

Nobody has an explanation. The hard problem is still unsolved. I hope for science to find a mechanism in the future. But this will only work if science isn't held back anymore by denialists like Dennett.

[Anonymous No.4600458]

>>4600448
calm down bud, your getting very worked up.

[Anonymous No.4600462]

>>4600452
Looking at neurons. Identify states both in subjective experience and neuron interaction. Note how those states change together.

Baking that cake is easy. Conceptually, at least.

[Anonymous No.4600463]

>>4600454
>Give me the name of someone

I always thought that Hofstadter was on the right track in GEB and I Am a Strange Loop

[Anonymous No.4600468]

>>4600434
Yes, and? Dennett seeks to do that.

[Anonymous No.4600469]

>>4600454
>Again, he's denying that such experience is attributable to the existence of special properties, like qualia.

What do you think qualia are? Do you believe his retarded straw man of "hurr durr qualia imply dualism"? Qualia is literally nothing more than a synonym for subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.4600476]

>>4600462
How do you observe subjective experience even though it is private to the person experiencing it?

>>4600468
Denial is not an explanation.

[Anonymous No.4600479]

>>4600469

Personally I don't find his argument very convincing. But you don't even seem to understand what his argument is, which is why I'm pushing.

[Anonymous No.4600482]

>>4600463
>GEB
Come back when you finished middle school.

>>4600479
What IS his argument? All I see from him is a shitty straw man against dualism. Nobody here is promoting dualism. We just want to know the neuronal mechanism behind qualia.

[Anonymous No.4600492]

>>4600482

>http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Dennett-Quining-Qualia.pdf
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Daniel_Dennett

Dennett does think there's a major supposition underlying the whole notion of qualia--the 'cartesian theater' conception of consciousness, which he wants to challenge. however, his argument is not x implies y, i don't like y, therefore not x. just read.

[Anonymous No.4600495]

>>4600482
>GEB
>middle school

Did you read it?

[Anonymous No.4600500]

>>4600463
I like hofstadter, but "systems with feedback loops can get surprisingly complex" isn't really that much to go on.

[Anonymous No.4600501]

>>4600495
Of course I didn't read it. I read real textbooks.

[Anonymous No.4600506]

>>4600501
>Of course I don't know what I talk about. I shitpost on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.4600510]

>>4600501

[Anonymous No.4600519]

>>4600506
>Complains about shitposting in a shitpost

Fuckin' meta. Hofstadter would approve.

[Anonymous No.4600523]

>>4600492
>empty philosodrivel
>no neuroscientifically testable mechanism
Just as expected. His kindergarten tier bickering over old thought experiments doesn't give any insight into neuroscience. Science needs facts and testable hypotheses. Pseudo-intellectual musings are neither.

[Anonymous No.4600526]

>>4600469
>>4600492

For Dennett, qualia is a loaded term, not just "subjective experience." That's sort of his whole point in "denying" it. He's denying that there is something unique and ineffable about the "what it is like to be" of experience. That it is, in fact, observable.

If "subjective experience" were really "subjective" in the sense that people posing the existence of the "hard problem of consciousness" suggest, it would not be explainable through scientific means. so it's rather ironic that you're asking us to explain, scientifically, the "mechanism" that "produces" this "hard problem."

Maybe I can pose Dennett's answer in another way: a rejection of "subjective" experience is not a rejection of experience itself.

[Anonymous No.4600527]

The common traits of the /sci/ troll and how to discern his identity:

1) Disregards the whole of philosophy; refers to philosophy and philosophers as "philosofaggotry" and "philosotards" respectively
2) When called out, i.e., asked for a justification in positing some arbitrary ontological position x, he tells you to use Google or justifies his answer as "common sense" which he himself hasn't been able to define. His definitions of "common sense" usually amount to "because it seems to me that way!!!".
3) Has been called out multiple times regarding Mathematical Logic, especially on occasions where he postulated that he is more knowledgeable in the fields of Mathematics and Logic than anyone here, but not surprisingly, he failed miserably and, as expected, resorted to tactics mentioned in point 2).
4) Pretends to be a girl. Wouldn't be too surprised if he were in fact a girl: that would make a lot of sense, considering the above-mentioned points.

The guy is quintessentially delusional.

[Anonymous No.4600529]

I'm trying to characterize consciousness so bear with me. What do you think of this thought experiment?

We see that a blind person does not experience the qualia of vision, that is, his subjective experience does not extend to that aspect of reality. Could we similarly remove sensory inputs from a subject's brain and eliminate subjective experience all together? Perhaps not in a developed subject, because the memory of qualia still remains, but if one were to carry out such a process on a developing fetus, would consciousness develop? Can we conclude that consciousness is not an intrinsic property of the brain, but of its coupling to the world around it?

[Anonymous No.4600531]

>>4600523

You didn't read a thing, don't act like you did.

You clearly don't understand where Dennett's coming from, or you wouldn't be making such bizzare claims about him. His whole kick is about making philosophy an adjunct to science. He's a fucking Quinean.

[Anonymous No.4600541]

>>4600526
>That it is, in fact, observable.
How? How do you observe the private subjective experience a person cannot communicate to others?

>If "subjective experience" were really "subjective" in the sense that people posing the existence of the "hard problem of consciousness" suggest, it would not be explainable through scientific means. so it's rather ironic that you're asking us to explain, scientifically, the "mechanism" that "produces" this "hard problem."
That's the fucking point of the hard problem. Our current understanding of science doesn't allow us to approach it. All we can do is hope for future technology to give futher insight.

>Maybe I can pose Dennett's answer in another way: a rejection of "subjective" experience is not a rejection of experience itself.
This doesn't change the fact that most people have subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.4600548]

>>4600541

>people have subjective experience

not in the sense that they think they do

[Anonymous No.4600551]

>>4600531
>You didn't read a thing, don't act like you did.
I read the wikipedia you linked and it was enough bullshit to convince me to skip the pdf file. If you believe outdated, oversimplified and unrealistic _philosophical_ thought experiments are equivalent to neuroscientific research, then you're either trolling or mentally handicapped.

[Anonymous No.4600555]

>>4600526
So basically, either there IS no hard problem and it's all just the working of neurons... or we've all got souls.

Right?

[Anonymous No.4600561]

>>4600551
Your entire knowledge of Science, Mathematics, Logic and Philosophy stems from Wikipedia articles, though.

What's the matter, are actual papers too intellectually demanding for you to handle?

[Anonymous No.4600562]

>>4600555
>So basically, either there IS no hard problem and it's all just the working of neurons

False. The hard problem is "Explain the mechanism behind subjective experience". If subjective experience turns out to be caused by neuronal activity and we find a mechanism and a method to test it, then this would be a perfectly fine scientific solution to the hard problem. I hope science will do it one day, once it isn't held back anymore by philosotardation.

[Anonymous No.4600564]

>>4600541

>Our current understanding etc.

something the is scientifically inexplicable is not going to become explicable with the advancement of technology. that's an 'analytic' truth.

>>4600555

no. false dilemma. who's strawmanning whom, really?

>>4600551

all you're doing is contradicting with strings of vitriolic adjectives. you've demonstrated no grasp of the subject at hand, just an impertinent attitude towards anyone and everyone trying to engage you.

i thinks it's past your bed time. it's certainly past mine. good night.

[Anonymous No.4600568]

>>4599943
Actually, most of them were there for analytic. Some Continentals, sure. The chief problem is that they were literal-minded as fuck and were incapable of anything other than >srsbsns unless it was a joke referencing a popular figure in the canon.

>>4599980
>implying philosophy can only be submitted for formal review through papers submitted to university departments and peer-reviewed and exalted with praise before being heralded and added to the metanarrative that is "philosophical progress is still occurring!"

You must be new here.

[Anonymous No.4600571]

>>4600561
Your projections are getting ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4600572]

>>4600562
I miss being a teenager..

[Anonymous No.4600575]

>>4600571
> M-my mee mee pictures will make him shut up!

[Anonymous No.4600578]

>>4600564
>something the is scientifically inexplicable is not going to become explicable with the advancement of technology
Some discoveries are made by serendipity. Some discoveries are made by a single genius who has a new idea nobody thought of before. Your attitude is anti-scientific.

>>4600572
Me too.

[Anonymous No.4600589]

>>4600575
Don't resort to shitposting. Contain your frustration. Maybe next time learn some science and logic before engaging in a debate about a topic you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.4600590]

>>4600589
Jokes on you I'm not the guy you are debating.

[Anonymous No.4600596]

>>4600590
I should of noticed. Your post was higher quality than his.

[Anonymous No.4600597]

>>4600578
>Some discoveries are made by a single genius who has a new idea nobody thought of before.
Have you even read Popper?

>Me too
Missing something implies recollecting a particular memory, but in your circumstances (since you are a teenager), how can you miss something that can only be missed and understood at the later part of your life?

[Anonymous No.4600605]

>>4600597
Such cutting wit

[Anonymous No.4600606]

>>4600597
>Have you even read Popper?
No, I prefer to read science and math books.

>since you are a teenager
I am not and I don't even understand how you believe this would constitute an insult.

[Anonymous No.4600616]

>>4600606
Can't wait for the day everyone on here recognizes you for the troll that you are and that no sane conversation can come out of engaging you and your prejudices.

Thus far, /lit/ seems to be stepping on the same rake for a while now. Disappointing.

[Anonymous No.4600622]

>>4600616
At no point was I trolling. If you feel the need to make yourself belief that opinions disagreeing with you are "trolling", then you should consider seeking psychiatric help. I have my opinions and I will continue posting them. There is nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.4600626]

>>4600622
>At no point was I trolling

You does not makes you less of a troll

[Anonymous No.4600629]

>>4600626
Learn English.

[Anonymous No.4600632]

Philosophy of mind has reached a bit of a standstill, while the eliminativists like Churchland and Dennet think that consciousness has already been explained, the property dualists like Chalmers and Strawson accept that theoretically it may never be explained. It's nice seeing the whole (non)debate in a microcosm; it really makes such fertile ground for trolling.

[Anonymous No.4600635]

>>4600629
>>4600626
>>4600622
>>4600616
>>4600606

Both of you, go to bed. This thread isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.4600638]

>>4600635
What is your stance on OP's question?

[Anonymous No.4600640]

philosophy's death was collateral damage from science's suicide

[Anonymous No.4600654]

I thought science didn't deal with subjective stuff.

[Anonymous No.4600656]

>>4600654
lol

[Anonymous No.4600658]

>>4600638
OP's question? Presumptuous and provocative, but typical. I think it was just /sci/ trying to get a rise out of /lit/ again.

[Anonymous No.4600661]

>>4600640

[Anonymous No.4600667]

>>4600640
Both of those actually stem from mathematics' chronic sexual deviance and alcoholism

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4600680]

>>4600667
The horror!

[Anonymous No.4600708]

>>4600384
NDEs.

http://www.skeptiko.com/237-patricia-churchland-sandbagged-by-near-death-experience/

[Anonymous No.4600744]

Oh cool, a philosophy of mind thread. Does this book provide all the major stuff I should be aware of? I've already read an intro textbook on it (Mind by Searle) so now I want to get into the actual primary source stuff. If this one isn't good, can someone provide another one they do like? Money isn't an issue since I'm already willing to shell out $60 for this one.

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Classical-Contemporary-Readings/dp/019514581X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393212734&sr=8-1&keywords=philosophy+of+mind+classical+and+contemporary+readings

[Anonymous No.4600761]

>>4600744
Naturally. Although, Foster's (one of the few proponents of idealism these days) essays are missing. The collection of papers are mostly of the physicalist and dualist shades of ontologies.

[Anonymous No.4600780]

>>4600761
Can you provide a title to one of Foster's essays? Googling "foster philosophy of mind" gives a handful of different guys by the name of Foster (and even /lit/s poster child DFW).

[Anonymous No.4600821]

>>4600780
A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism

[Anonymous No.4600832]

>>4600821
>It takes the world to be something whose existence is ultimately constituted by facts about human sensory experience, or by some richer complex of non-physical facts in which such experiential facts centrally feature.
Radical. Thanks, anon. Really bummed I missed out on signing up for the phil. of mind course this semester at uni. Hopefully it'll be available in the fall so I don't have to wait until 2015 to take it.

[Anonymous No.4600875]

>>4598983
This.
Its not that philosophy died in the 20th century (correcting OP here). Its that fucking EVERYTHING died.
Welcome to post-modernism, kid

[Anonymous No.4601278]

>>4600875
We get the comfort of Husserl / Sartre / Beauvoir and standpoint epistemology in the clear knowledge that the remaining tasks are 1. curating the phenomenological history and 2. providing it. As false as Camus's argument against suicide really rings (as if by his own argument nothing means anything, then even the appeal to remain among the living is based purely in pathos), it does manage to communicate at least so much. Thus we receive the task of humanity and the unfettered goal thereof: to explain how we were and hope that there's more for the race in some unperceived future.

[Anonymous No.4601286]

>>4600875
Fukuyama was right

[Anonymous No.4601296]

>>4600875
>Welcome to post-modernism, kid
>Welcome to post-modernism, kid
>Welcome to post-modernism, kid
>Welcome to post-modernism, kid
>Welcome to post-modernism, kid

[Anonymous No.4601300]

>>4601296
Imagine four posts on the edge of a cliff. Post-modernism works the same way.

[Anonymous No.4601306]

>>4601278
"According to Heidegger Husserl himself began with the roof: the merely sensibly perceived thing is itself derivative; there are not first sensibly perceived things and thereafter the same things in a state of being valued or in a state of affecting us. Our primary understanding of the world is not an understanding of things as objects but of what the Greeks indicated by pragmata, things which we handle and use. The horizon within which Husserl had analyzed the world of pre-scientific understanding was the pure consciousness as the absolute being. Heidegger questioned that orientation by referring to the fact that the inner time belonging to the pure consciousness cannot be understood if one abstracts from the fact that this time is necessarily finite and even constituted by man's mortality."

[Anonymous No.4601313]

>>4601296
You never did the Kenosha, kid.
You never did the Kenosha Kid.
You never did. - The Kenosha Kid.

[Anonymous No.4601320]

>>4601306
Thank you for this post. I regrettably haven't taken the opportunity to read Being and Time yet.

I've been terribly stagnant and reliant upon history to determine how I can be of best use to humanity; I think I'm starting to understand a notion of which way to go.

[Anonymous No.4601418]

>>4598438
If you're asking why we no longer have philosophers, it's because there aren't a bunch of aristocrats who get bored and call themselves philosophers anymore.

[Anonymous No.4601425]

>tfw the philosophers today are so behind compared to the presocratics it's not even funny

[Anonymous No.4601432]

21st century philosophers
1.Zizek
2.Slim Shady
3.Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4601526]

The most pressing question concerning this thread is how it could even receive replies. Who are all these dumb people on /lit/ replying to such obvious bait?

[Anonymous No.4601548]

>>4601526
You.

[Anonymous No.4601549]

the development of other disciplines which gave actual answers to those questions that philosophy couldnt handle.

philosophy was so important until then just because it was the only one around.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4601551]

>>4601526
Philosophers debate anything and everything. Repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.4601588]

>>4598438
But Hawking never said that.

[Anonymous No.4601590]

>>4598985
Your presumptions are silly as well. Our society is built upon the dead, why can't science be the same?

I'm not saying that I agree with him but your argument is flawed.

[Anonymous No.4601596]

Has anyone here actually been enlightened by a philosopher's musings?

[Anonymous No.4601602]

>>4601551
define 'anything and everything'

[Anonymous No.4601623]

>>4600430
But Dennett does not deny that subjective experience happens. Are you dumb?

[Anonymous No.4601644]

>>4600541
>All we can do is hope for future technology to give futher insight.
But that's the fucking problem right there with the "hard problem," it is DEFINED as unsolvable, i.e. it is about uncomminucable subjective experiences. The hard problem is translatable to that ting about the lion in the room but you can't perceive it - it's really there though.

[Anonymous No.4601837]

>>4598983

>implying any Continental has ever done anything so rigorous as shoot down a notion

[Anonymous No.4601859]

>>4598438

Philosophy isn't dead, it just doesn't make money.

There's a huge fucking difference. The world is led by people who are into money, right now, that explains that.

As soon as you get philosophically-inclined individuals in power, you'll get philosophy back.

All we need is to get out of these money-based democracies.

Remember Plato: democracy always makes the bed for fascism.

[Anonymous No.4601962]

>>4601859
>Remember Plato

I don't remember him because he never said anything of value.

[Anonymous No.4602051]

>>4601859
Reading the Republic i thought Plato was a fascist himself.

[Anonymous No.4602085]

>>4602051
>Taking the idea of the ideal city state in the Republic literally
lol
Nietzsche called Plato a socialist.

[Anonymous No.4602092]

>>4598438
>philosophy died in the 19th century?
Philosophy started dying way more than that. It died when it inspired science to take off.

Philosophy since and before hasn't changed the outlook on life and whatever at all. The greatest scientist of their times have changed it much more, just think of the massive changes in everyone after Galileo/Kopernikus revealed their findings, or Darwin.

Why? It has nothing to offer. Hell, after creating science (which I credit it; well done) it has not effected the world slightest. At best it becomes a living joke like Freud and dicks, that's the state of philosophy in a world where we have science.

[Anonymous No.4602147]

>>4600346
Which hard problem? I've always been puzzled by what people find problematic here.

[Anonymous No.4602195]

>>4602147
how to do justice to the ineffable subjective character of consciouss experience, while providing an adequate neuro-physiological explanation of it.

[Anonymous No.4602245]

I disagree with hawking. He feels that physics is the key to unlocking the meaning of life and it will solve the questions of humanity. But science has taken too big of a leap. Yes it shows us how out body and the world works. But it leaves us with a feeling of being mechanical (which we are). That makes us feel trapped. That is where philosophy comes into play. It free us from that trapped feeling.

[Anonymous No.4602282]

Philosophy is more popular than ever. I see STEM kids at my school watching Zizek videos on youtube and reading stuff like Dosteovesky and Camus.


I think secretly everyone is jealous of philosophers because it is the master discourse after all. They're too cowardly to dis it publically and get called out for their ignorance so they go online and talk about how it's dead to stroke their egos.

[Anonymous No.4602298]

>>4602282
>Dosteovesky and Camus.
>philosophy

Choose exactly one. What's next? Are you gonna tell us Harry Potter is philosophy?