[ 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: 35 KB, 286x393, quine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5458824 No.5458824 [Reply] [Original]

ask a philosophy phd anything

>> No.5458828

Will you be my girlfriend?

>> No.5458835

>>5458828
funny i was just about to ask you the same thing

>> No.5458839

>>5458824
why are people alive

>> No.5458844

>>5458824
how NEET are you?

>> No.5458845

>>5458824
how do i even?

>> No.5458846 [DELETED] 

>>5458844
this

>> No.5458847

>>5458839

answer 1: by definition. "x is a person" analytically entails "x is alive."

answer 2: because our universe contingently embodies rational cognition in organic material.

>> No.5458852

>>5458844
i went to a top 3 school and am doing a phd at a top 10 school. i will get a job (but maybe not a great one).

i'm fairly asocial but i do network (cuz I have to) and have some friends.

>> No.5458855

>>5458845
you have to believe in yourself.

>> No.5458865

>>5458824
so hows the hobo life treatingyou?

>> No.5458867

>>5458865
see
>>5458852
i could certainly stand to have more money but i'm not a terribly materialistic person

>> No.5458881

Do you agree that Socrates was the wisest man of Athens?

>> No.5458885

>>5458867
do you ponder on the why and not on the how?

>> No.5458889

>>5458881
hard to say, i wasn't there.

the whole idea of "the wisest man is one who admits he knows nothing" is something i generally agree with. things are so overwhelmingly complicated, you should never really have any confidence you've figured things out (but you should keep trying)

>> No.5458892

>>5458885
not sure i know what you mean. in general, for any phenomenon it's reasonable to ask both why and how (so long as those questions are posed with some standards in mind)

>> No.5458904

>>5458824
religion?

>> No.5458905

Do you think that the analytic- synthetic distinction is valid?
Also, I graduated second in my class from a very good uni in the UK and I'm about to enter the philosophy MA programme. Should I go for a phd or fuck bitches, snort coke and earn money?

>> No.5458910
File: 161 KB, 1500x1500, fsjal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5458910

what's it like getting a phd in philosophy anyway?
>mfw you just sit in a circle, sip tea and contemplate life

>> No.5458912

>>5458845
you can't

>> No.5458932

>>5458904
I don't subscribe to one (although I find meditation and Buddhist ideas to be very helpful psychologically). I am an atheist but I am not particularly militant about it.

>>5458905
It really depends. In the way that Carnap wanted to erect it, no, I don't think so. For all the reasons Quine announced in 2 Dogmas and 'Carnap on Logical Truth' (and elsewhere). At the same time, it seems very difficult to deny that something like the distinction exists. Synonymy relations seem to be real relations in natural language. Quine is right to point out it's hard to say exactly what those relations are, but that doesn't show they're not there.

It's a really complicated issue, so I guess my TLDR is: it depends on what use you want to put the distinction to. If it's bearing some strong epistemological/metaphysical weight (as with Carnap) it's probably unsustainable. If it's part of your semantics for natural language, then it's a theoretical term whose usefulness depends on the successfulness of the science.

>> No.5458939

>>5458905
Also to answer the second part of your question, it depends on what you want to do. An MA alone in philosophy is good for two things: personal enrichment and getting more money if you become a secondary school teacher (in the US anyway). But it won't help you get a job in academia; you need a PhD. If you go for a PhD, you will not be fucking bitches or earning money; you may be snorting lots of coke, depending on where you go.

>> No.5458944

>>5458932
god dang it!
> I am an atheist
why isn't anyone an Ignostic these days?

>> No.5458947

>>5458910
In anglophone analytic philosophy, you read a fuck-ton of material (and, if you do metaphysics/epistemology, you're basically a laughing stock if you don't know a quite fair bit of science as well---a point about analytic philosophy that no one seems to appreciate on the internet) and try very hard to make valid and sound arguments. precision, clarity, consonance with the sciences and the philosophical tradition are the things you aim for. it's not at all a circle-jerk. it's a rigorous enterprise. (and if you think "well, philosophy asks pointless questions that can never be answered" then, surprise, you've taken a philosophical position, which must be clarified and argued for---and it's a question that philosophers /do/ often try to clarify and argue about)

>> No.5458952

>>5458824
Who are your favorite philosophers?
What thoughts do you have that you think are most interesting or important on the idea of truth?
What do you find most compelling about philosophy?
Do you believe in God?

>> No.5458953

>>5458824
what fiction and poetry do you read/like

>> No.5458955

>>5458944
I've never seen this concept before, but it's interesting. I will say that my exact beliefs about "God" vary with how you want to precisely define the notion of "God" at issue. (ie i'm basically Hume in Part XI of his dialogue on religion)

>> No.5458962

>>5458944
because we have a burden of proof way higher for everything except god. Why should god be exempt from normal rigor?

>> No.5458965

>>5458824
Does the knowledge that your PHD is less valuable from an economic stand point then most AAs ever bother you?

>> No.5458967

What is your thesis topic?

>> No.5458972

Are you a mind reader?

>> No.5458975

>>5458952
>Who are your favorite philosophers?
Too many to mention. I'm a big fan of Quine (see OP) and Putnam, but all the "big names" in analytic philosophy I'm a fan of. The most interesting philosopher I've read recently is Mark Wilson. I guess in general I'm a big fan of American pragmatism.

>What thoughts do you have that you think are most interesting or important on the idea of truth?

Very few people in analytic philosophy have original ideas (because it's extremely extremely hard to have an idea that's both original and plausible). So I don't have any of my /own/ thoughts on truth that I would say are important.

That said, there is a huge and interesting literature about truth. I guess maybe the most interesting idea to me is this: correspondence theories of truth are overwhelmingly natural and plausible, and yet there are situations in which they simply don't seem to work (for instance, mathematical truth, ethical truths, perhaps logical truth). And yet alternative theories have deep problems as well.

>What do you find most compelling about philosophy?

Every aspect of existence is mysterious if you get down to it. Philosophy is the attempt to banish mystery as much as possible, and in the cases where we can't, try to understand /why/ some things seem recalcitrant to understanding. People knock it for being "useless," and that criticism is right as far as it goes (not very far); but at the end of the day it's an expression of human ambition. Ultimately that's what is most compelling to me.

>Do you believe in God?
Depends on what you mean exactly, but basically no.

>>5458953
Fiction and poetry is a huge part of my life, and I read a ton. In terms of fiction, I'm a big fan of Melville, Faulkner, Shakespeare, those sorts of guys. I recently read David Markson and was very impressed. Poetry-wise, I love Yeats, Larkin, Robert Lowell, Donne, Ashbery, and many others.

>> No.5458978

I don't believe you.

>> No.5458980

>>5458965
Not at all. I went into with the full knowledge that the only job it's any good for is becoming a professor of philosophy---which is what I wanted. I'm good at what I do and don't have much worry that I'll get SOME job (although, again, it might not be a terrific one). I'm not a materialistic person; all I need is basic wherewithal.

>>5458967
I'm just starting my 3rd year so it's still up in the air. I spent all summer reading about optics and the neurobiology of vision, under the assumption that I'll be writing something in the philosophy of perception. We'll see.

>>5458972
yes and you disgust me

>> No.5458983

>>5458978
about...?

>> No.5458986

Rigid designator vs. theory of descriptions? Do you subscribe to modal realism? What do you think about Hintikka's IF logic?

>> No.5458993

>>5458824
Pick one idea you care about. A philosophy or concept. Something that you as an individual want to defend. The most important one to yourself you can establish.
All ideas fall apart at some point, but what is a thought or ideology you feel most compelled to establish to other people despite any pitfalls?

>> No.5458995

>>5458983
Everything. You seem dumb.

>> No.5459005

>>5458975
>but all the "big names" in analytic philosophy I'm a fan of.
>I guess in general I'm a big fan of American pragmatism.
How boring and insincere

>> No.5459009

>>5458881
How can the wisest man be made of only words?

>> No.5459024

Can I have fries with that?

>> No.5459036

>>5458986

Good questions. As far as giving a semantics for natural language is concerned, names are probably rigid designators. Kripke's anti-descriptivist arguments are compelling, I think; and the positive development of rigid designation theory is somewhat compelling as well. There's a huge literature on "neo-descriptivism" that I haven't read and I'm sure someone has worked out a version of descriptivism which avoids the problems.

I get more worried when rigid designation is put to more metaphysical uses. For instance, I would want to say that the property of "charge" has a descriptive semantics. It means something like "obeys Coulomb's law." But then, it may seem we can't entertain counterfactuals about changes in the property of charge ("what if charge operated via an inverse cube law?"). Some think we should be able to entertain such counterfactuals; so they posit a "bare property" (a "haecceity") that "charge" refers to /directly/ (not descriptively). But I find that a very mysterious idea. So TLDR in a metaphysical context, something like direct reference/rigid designation leads to a very bizarre metaphysical thesis, which I don't like. There are other examples like this too.

Modal realism is a clusterfuck of an issue. On the one hand, go for broke in inquiry: if possible world frameworks clarify issues, go for it. On the other hand, if you're of an extremely scientific realist bent (like Lewis) you will think that such theoretical success warrants a belief in the literal truth of possible worlds---but that seems outrageous. TLDR I'm attracted to this view: some modal locutions deserve genuine truth-values and truth-makers; be reductionistic about those. For the remaining modal locutions, be instrumentalistic about them.

I haven't studied Hintikka's IF logic, but it looks quite interesting.

>> No.5459041

>>5458995
If you'd like to have a serious discussion like adults, I'm here.

>> No.5459055

>>5458993
That's a tall order, but an interesting question. A number of possible responses come to mind. I guess what I would most like to do is this: impress scientism as much as possible on people who are anti-science, and anti-scientism on people are super-pro-science. People should, in my strong opinion, have an overwhelming amount of respect of science (which means they must /understand/ the science). Lord Kelvin wrote that if you don't understand something quantitatively and in an experimental spirit, you don't understand it at all. I wish more people subscribed to that.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that science is not the panacea that some think it is. There are some things it seems that it cannot, IN ITSELF, answer. For instance, very overwhelming metaphysical questions. Questions about consciousness also. I would want to get scientists to appreciate that there /are/ forms of thinking which are worthwhile besides scientific thinking.

Kind of a cop-out answer. Sorry.

>> No.5459067

have you already created your own school of thought? i mean isn't every philosopher supposed to

>> No.5459079

>>5458975
What is your favorite continental philosopher, or have you read any?

>> No.5459080

>>5459067
not in analytic philosophy. everyone's aiming at an overall picture of the world which is maximally coherent, plausible, and broad (yet detailed). the results of science are taken seriously. the work of previous philosophers is seen as something to build on (not in an uncritical way, of course). most people are content if they can make a little bit of progress on one small question.

things were different in ancient greece, and i gather things are also different at some places in continental europe.

>> No.5459083

>>5459079
in high school i read a bunch, and every once in a while i'll read some more. in general though i am very poorly read in continental philosophy.

i read anti-oedipus and thought it was a hoot. very enjoyable. there are various ideas from heidegger that i find quite interesting. i am also a big fan of merleau-ponty.

>> No.5459089

Popperian rationalism/change of paradigms or epistemological anarchism?

>> No.5459091

>>5459083
How does one get published in journals not printed by his own university, especially ones outside his country? I am asking for general ways, apart from your personal experience.

>> No.5459099

done any conferences?

>> No.5459109

Why were great philosophers, such as Kant, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, losers with no life, but shit philosophers such as Sartre and Foucault, men who led full lives?

>> No.5459110

>>5459089
it depends on what question these are offered as potential answers to. I think Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend all have flawed overall philosophies of science (although at places they have interesting ideas and insights). Maybe narrow down your question?

>>5459091
Again, my answer is restricted to anglophone analytic philosophy. Basically, you won't get published in a reputable journal without having some university affiliation (more specifically, some sort of lecturer/professorship position). There are some "independent scholars" but they are exceedingly rare, and also often extremely smart (and they know people in the field). Whether the journal is "printed by his own university" is entirely irrelevant; in fact most journals are published by publishers, not universities.

There may be other periodicals you can publish in without having university affiliation. But they are not professionally read.

>> No.5459114

>>5459099
Yes I have. I did a bunch of undergraduate conferences, I chaired one graduate student conference, and gave a poster at another conference. I have also /been/ to many others.

>>5459109
Socrates says that to be a good philosopher, you have to detest earthly pleasures entirely. I guess it just has to do with the fact that, to do good philosophy, your whole being has to be committed to it. It has to matter to you more than anything else. Somehow this fact tends to exclude room for "leading a full life."

>> No.5459121

>>5459109
Aurelius was both.

>> No.5459122

Absurdism is retarded trash, Y/N?

>> No.5459126

>>5459114
>Yes I have. I did a bunch of undergraduate conferences, I chaired one graduate student conference, and gave a poster at another conference. I have also /been/ to many others.
any advice on them? I spoke to someone recently about them and he advised not doing conference papers as a first year PhD student.

>> No.5459129

If I have a med degree, do you think id be able to take part in interdisciplinary neuroscience projects?
How important is it to make connections?

>> No.5459130

>>5459122
I'm not sure I really know what this is. I've read Kierkegaard and Camus. I find them to be extremely interesting, and when I feel depressed or overwhelmed with how pointless life is, I see where they're coming from. So I guess I regard it as a certain /literary/ perspective, one I find to be quite rich.

As a philosophical program, I can't say I know what its tenets are. It's probably retarded in some ways. Can you be more specific with what you have in mind?

>> No.5459135

>>5459114
Yeah, but Plato was one of those "there is something MORE real than the physical" type philosophers.

>>5459121
Yeah, but that was mostly because other people were handing him this and that.

>> No.5459140

>>5459126
His advice is pretty common, and it's probably good. The fact is that, to give a successful conference presentation, you have to really know the literature you're talking about and you have to be good at the style of argument in that literature. Those two things take lots of time to develop.

On the other hand, it's always good to beef your CV and get the experience and network. Of course if it goes poorly, congratulations, you made a shit first impression on the like 5 other people who will actually spend their conference time listening to an unknown first year PhD.

So yes, you should definitely hold off. It's a good idea to ask your professors. Write a paper for them, develop it, see if it has legs, and then ask them: is this appropriate to submit to a conference?

Also spend a lot of time anticipating objections to what you wrote. It will help you during the Q&A.

>> No.5459141

>>5459129
Uh it depends. There are tons of practicing doctors who are also engaged in research---many of my friends are, for instance. But all of them did MD/PhDs, or at least worked very hard to keep a hand in research while doing their MD.

If you haven't actively done much research, then you won't be of much use to any research projects (unless, like, they need a surgeon to open up a human skull and you're a surgeon).

Making connections is all important. I deluded myself into thinking it wasn't, but it really really really is. It's crucial. Don't skimp on it.

>> No.5459143

>>5459140
Thanks, those are some good reasons.

>> No.5459145

>>5459135
True enough. Undoubtedly Socrates' (i.e. Plato's) "anti-consumerism" is born of his "anti-materialism." Still, I think it's true that to do good philosophy, it has to matter to you more than anything, and in that case it makes sense if you view procuring material goods as somehow less worthy of your time (it doesn't further your primary goal at all)

>> No.5459148

>>5459143
Also, one last piece of advice: brace yourself. It can be a really difficult experience, because people really go for the jugular at conferences. It can really feel like you're being attacked, and if your responses aren't good, you can feel really dumb and demoralized afterwards. The best corrective is to be confident in your paper and prepare a lot ahead of time. But take it from me, it can be emotionally grueling.

>> No.5459149

>>5459141
>Don't skimp on it
How do I proceed doing this? I go up to the professor and tell him I'm interested in helping? Im an undergrad.

>> No.5459150
File: 593 KB, 988x1283, ff4a450b4f79bada5998560ea9b7b444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5459150

>>5458824
why does quine hold his hands like a catgirl

>> No.5459154

>>5459145
I'm not simply referring to acquisition of material goods, Plato said all worldly concerns should matter very little to philosophers, since they should care about truth that is higher than physical senses.

>> No.5459156

>>5458824
Why do so many philosophers remain unconvinced by Two Dogmas?

What arguments remain in favor of the analytic-synthetic distinction?

>> No.5459157

In my uni the course still has Hegel in it Does this automatically mean it's bad?
I plan on finishing my computer science course and take philosophy later in life. You think this is a good idea?

>> No.5459160

>>5459149
Can you tell me more about your situation? But general advice:

You want to make sure that you have a good basic understanding of whatever is being tested in the lab you want to work in. If they're studying transduction of sound waves in owls, go read a bunch of review articles on that. Etc. Then e-mail the professor and say: I'm looking for research experience, I'm interested in the work you do in your lab, do you have any use for me? Probably you will wind up pipetting for a year---everyone does. Then either try to take a more involved role in his lab, or find another lab that will let you have a more involved role (it will be easier because now you can say "I spent a year working in so-and-so's lab..."). Ideally, you build up lab experience until you're in a position to write a senior thesis, when you can conduct your own experiment. That will make you look interesting to labs in the future.

If you're looking for a lab to work in, ask an advisor in your major "Do you know of anyone who will give me work in their lab?"

After that, I can't really say anything. If you want to do research, the best bet is by far going for MD/PhD. If that's not feasible, ask your advisors for ways to maintain a research presence while doing an MD.

>> No.5459169

>>5459150
lmfao! i didn't even notice that, but now I don't think I can unsee it.

i guess quine has a thing for undetached neko parts.

>>5459156
See my previous post about the analytic/synthetic distinction. First of all, I think over the years /many/ philosophers were convinced. If you read philosophy of mind from like the 1960s to 1980s, people say things like "well obviously quine refuted the analytic/synthetic distinction so...." It was really uncritically accepted, in some quarters, by some people.

Second, as I said, it's not always clear what Quine's target is, exactly. I think most people would say "Yes, that article discredited the a/s distinction as Carnap wrought it." On the other hand, people think that in doing natural language semantics, there /is/ such a thing as synonymy, and Quine's "closed circle" arguments don't tell against the /existence/ of such synonymy relations. (Now, Quine would object to the whole enterprise of natural language semantics as it's currently done, but his critique of /that/ is spread out across his entire work, and it also seems to involve things like indeterminacy of translation and inscrutability of reference, which people thought were just too extreme).

For interesting arguments in favor of the distinction (with the latter, natural language considerations in mind) see "Analyticity Reconsidered" by Boghossian and the work of Gillian Russell.

>> No.5459176

>>5459157
It doesn't automatically mean it's bad. Not at all. First of all, there's tons of different ways of reading and thinking about Hegel. Most of them imo are "bad" but some are not. Second, lots of departments that are otherwise totally antipathetic to Hegel-style philosophy still offer courses on him, just because of his interest in the history of philosophy.

I think it's a very good idea to do philosophy /after/ you've done something else. Computer scientists in particular are often very successful at getting into (analytic) philosophy later on (there are various reasons for this). Unless you plan to pursue a career in philosophy, go for it.

I will say, however, I think it's a bad idea to read philosophy "on your own." It's the kind of thing you should be taught, at least initially. So if you want to study it in any serious capacity, you should at least take a couple courses in it.

>> No.5459206

Have you read Nick Land, any thoughts on him?

>> No.5459210

>>5459206
Can't say I have. But it looks like some funky interesting stuff. I'm a big sci-fi nerd so anything having to do with "cybernetic culture" i'm down for. Where should I start iyo?

>> No.5459212

>>5459210
Don't know myself, only ordered Fanged Noumena this week since Ray Brassier thinks it's good. His blogs @ ufblog.net/

>> No.5459237

Philosophy of Science:
Popper came along with his falsification principle, and it all seemed very rational, the whole enterprise of science. Then Kuhn came along and said 'muh revolutions' and it was all political mudslinging and inconmensurability. Then Lakatos said 'no no, scientificity is not categorical, it's a comparative: X theory is more scientific than Y theory because...' On the side, Feyerabend went all anarchist and said 'fuck it all'.

What happened after that? Its seems to me after that discussion nobody really attempted to create a 'philosophy of general science' or to answer the question 'what separates science from common knowledge?'. Everybody just started doing 'philosophy of biology/psychology/physics/etc...'. Which turned out to be more of an elucidation process, 'what do scientists mean when they say x?'

Is there anybody out there today offering an alternative to Popper/Kuhn/Lakatos/etc?

>> No.5459302

>>5459237
I see. I was wondering if your original post was about the "demarcation question" or not. I see that it was.

It's true that people have shyed away from general philosophy of science over the years---and in particular, from attacking the demarcation question. I think the thinking is just that it's not a particularly worthwhile question to ask in the abstract. Recall that one of Popper's motivations was to issue a verdict about Marxism and Freudianism. He thought: they're not just wrong in content, their content somehow precludes them from being science. And of course his answer was: because they're not falsifiable.

But I think people realized that this is too crude. First, falsificationism leads you to say very strange things about paradigmatic examples of science (Popper thinks we should never feel we have rational confidence in a yet-unfalsified theory, it's only a "bold conjecture." But this just misses the wealth of strategies scientists use to quantify their uncertainty, and it misses the crucial connection between rational justification and quantified credences). Falsificationism is just not a demarcation criteria, it seems. Kuhn thought: demarcation goes by way of paradigms. But again, it seems like he abandoned the idea that we can evaluate methods for reliability etc. It also has the unintuitive consequence that pre- and post- QM microphysics had different subject matters---when clearly they don't (see Putnam's papers on Kuhn for a quite strong argument to this effect). Carnap tried to say: demarcation goes by way of linguistic frameworks, but Quine showed that project to be hopeless. Feyerabend took this all to show that the demarcation question is pointless, and /therefore/ there's nothing distinctive about science.

But of course there's lots of things that are distinctive of science. It's just that there's no /one rule/ which will /always be present/ in a scientific enterprise. Judging an enterprise as "scientific or not" is holistic: does it predict, does it explain, does it unify, is it simple, is it understandable, etc. There are various methods and patterns of inference which sometimes get used in some sciences, but not always.

So people looked at this and said: what's the use in even /bothering/ about the demarcation criterion? We can admit that science is sometimes influenced by social and pragmatic factors without impugning its rationality and reliability. We can admit that its methods shift in subtle ways without thinking that 'anything goes.' So what, exactly, is the point of asking demarcation, except in a (needlessly hostile) context where you want to belittle the Freudian by saying "you're not doing science!"

>> No.5459305

why does a straw bend when it goes into water?

What's behind your head?

>> No.5459307

>>5459305
It doesn't, but it appears to because of optics. Behind me head is (atm) empty space. Unless you're some sort of idealist, in which case the answer is "nothing" in a more robust sense.

>> No.5459309

>>5458824
....Why?

>> No.5459315

>>5459307
So as appearance of something the same as seeing that thing?
If I look behind me in a warped mirror, does the person I'm seeing become bulbous?

>> No.5459345

>>5459305
1. refraction

2. A bit of empty space and then a wall

easy peasy no philosophy required

>> No.5459351

How can u know that u cannot know nuffin?

>> No.5459365

Is there a T-dual of Witten's twistor topological string theory?

>> No.5459367

Is utopia possible in reality

>> No.5459372

What is the meaning of meaning?

>> No.5459651

>>5458824
wtf do you think I want to ask you something?

>> No.5459654

>>5458847
>answer 1: by definition. "x is a person" analytically entails "x is alive."
bullshit. If that were true, 'dead people' would be an oxymoron, which it is not.

>> No.5459657

>>5458889
>should
>should
>should everywhere

>> No.5459663

>>5458944
Wow, I thought I'd never see another ignostic. :)

>> No.5459759

>>5459302
But how can it be science if you don't test your hypothesis?

>> No.5459856

what position do you take on philosophy of mind?

>> No.5459863

>>5458824
can I get a double espresso please

>> No.5459866

>>5458824
Are you an idiot who ascribes to Ockham's Razor like Quine, or are you intelligent?

>> No.5459870

>>5458824
Why? There is only one Philosophical position, and it is foundational. Before that point, you're simply a student of philosophy, after it you are simply philosophizing.

That you've taken it to the extreme and received your PhD,is,if anything, an incentive not to ask you anything at all. Does a PhD in military theory make you a general?

>> No.5459874
File: 282 KB, 400x466, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5459874

>>5459866
>asks retarded, loaded questions
>calls Quine stupid
Holy shit, stop posting anytime.

>> No.5459876

>>5459367
No,unless reality with all of its inherent imperfections is utopia

>> No.5459881
File: 2.87 MB, 320x240, 1344476763396.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5459881

>>5459874
>he ascribes to Ockham's Razor

>> No.5459883

can you disprove ayn rand's philosophy?

(Tip: you cant )

>> No.5459889

>>5459881
>he thinks wallowing in verbiage for the sake of it equals to actually explaining shit

>> No.5459890

>>5459881
>clearly doesn't know what Occam's razor is

>> No.5459917

>>5459883
Only because Objectivist ontology and epistemology is too fucked to be conversant with any other system.

>> No.5459934

1. What do you think of continental philosophy?
2. Is it possible that you are a brain connected to a computer run by an evil continental philosopher who will start manipulating your perception of the universe so that any opinion you may hold is immediately falsified? If it is, does this prove that you can't even know that you can't know nuffin, because the universe may suddenly decide to stop obeying any sort of logically consistent laws?

>> No.5459948

>>5459934
the universe may suddenly decide to stop obeying any sort of logically consistent laws regardless if you are a brain connected to a computer or not

also op is long gone, went to chase his philosophical dreams or w/e them phd in philosophy do

>> No.5459959

>>5459948
He'll return. Anybody who gets a PhD in philosophy is just desperate for distraction.

>> No.5459974

>>5459948
But does that imply that you can't even know that you can't know nuffin?

>> No.5459989

>>5459974
but can you know that you can't know that you can't know anything?

>> No.5460007

>>5458962
Yeah, but do mankind have any proof that God does not exist? Believing in God doesn't mean you have to believe in creationism and everything else in the bible/Quran/Torah. They are simply just interpretations of God created by different people. You are free to create your own interpretation of God.
I am an agnostic. I don't believe in the bible, nor the Quran, nor the Torah, but I don't deny the existence of God. And if he does exist, he might not even care for us.

>> No.5460031

>>5458824
>>5458852
>Starts a thread claiming to be a PhD
>Admits within the first couple posts he doesn't actually have his PhD yet.
Your belief in the malleable definition of words/reality is about what I'd expect from a PhD student, and also explains why I seriously doubt you'll ever write anything I'd be interested in reading.

>> No.5460111

>>5459874

How do you explain the synonymity between Ockham's razor and the concept of parsimony in some of the natural sciences? Why do people feel the need for different names for semantically identical concepts? Do you think it's just about establishing disciplinary boundaries via jargon?

>> No.5460186
File: 8 KB, 300x168, images (6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5460186

>>5458824
Will you be my friend?

>> No.5460402

>>5460186
Nobody wants to be your friend.

>> No.5460427

>>5459005

>his preferences on a frivolous subject (one's "favorite" philosophers) do not attempt to be provocative
>he must be insincere!
Get over yourself, buddy. Just because he doesn't try to be "progressive" in his beliefs like you doesn't mean he can't have sincere beliefs.

>> No.5460435

>>5459176
Thanks! I will take some extra classes on it.
Also, I had a class on formal logic for verification of programs and absolutely fell in love with prepositional logic and first-order predicate logic. Probably I'll like the analytics, then.

>> No.5460519

>>5459109

At first I read Searle instead of Sartre, and I was about to blow a gasket. But really, Searle may be a counterexample to the implied thesis in your post. He seems like a pretty charismatic guy who really got around in the higher education world as a whole, despite also being a very accomplished philosopher. Also Russell. It seems like he lived quite a full life.

>> No.5460888

>>5459154
Are you dense, stupid, or a troll?

>> No.5460918

>>5459005
>if you aren't a banner waving Marxist, your philosophy must be boring and insincere

Marxism is the new norm. You can't be more pedestrian than by being a Marxist.

>> No.5460932

>>5458824
What was your dissertation on?

>> No.5460988

>>5460918
multi-cultural pol-correct liberalism is the norm
marxism is tolerated insofar it is depoliticized

>> No.5461007

>>5458824
Seriously what does gavagai mean?

>> No.5461094

>>5460988
>multi-cultural pol-correct liberalism
You mean misapplied Marxism?

>> No.5461235
File: 8 KB, 300x168, images (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5461235

>>5460402
......

>> No.5461306

>>5460988
>marxism is tolerated insofar it is depoliticized

Its tolerated because the multi-culti pol-correct liberals are waiting for the Marxists to grow up and realize the previously mentioned multi-culti is the best they are going to get right now.

>> No.5461308

>>5461007
lol look it up in the dictionary, what, you want me to translate it for you?

>> No.5461338

>>5459654

Well, technically, corpses are not treated legally or societally as persons. They're literally just the remains of a person, but not people themselves. You see that?

>> No.5461342

>>5461308
You're not OP right?

>> No.5461349

>>5458824
What can I do with a degree in philosophy, especially if I can take it all the way to phd status?

I guess another way of asking this is what work can I expect to do.

>> No.5461356

>>5459934

Objection: "evil" and "Continental philosopher" are synonyms. The fact that you stringed them together makes me think you don't know about the terms you're using.

>> No.5461388

>>5461349

You can expect to do one of two things:
Become a professor of philosophy if you're good and you came from a good university, or:
Become nothing and kill yourself at age 40.

Good luck!

>> No.5461729

>>5461388
He can also go fight in another war, some place in the middle east and carry with him The Gospels in Brief. Proceed to publish the only book that he will publish in his life. Go off to teach elementary school children off in the country side. Then goto England and work at a hospital after having given up the chair of philosophy because he solved all there was to solve.

But before he can do that he needs to get off of 4chan
But before he can get off of 4chan he needs to order a big mac.
But before he can order a bigmac he needs to go to McDonalds.
But before he can go to McDonalds he needs to wear his fedora.
But before he can wear his fedora he needs to read some Nietzsche.
But before he can red some Nietzsche he needs to read the Greeks.
But before he can read the Greeks he needs to get off of 4chan.

>> No.5461757

>>5461729
>he can red some Nietzsche
>red

is that you hegel

>> No.5461777
File: 73 KB, 348x512, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5461777

>>5461757
Patch of red