/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6835343]

>tfw science has made philosophy obsolete

[Anonymous No.6835363]

>>6835343
not interesting as fuck tbqh

[Anonymous No.6835367]

>>6835343
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835371]

>>6835343
ñ í á f
í
á
f

[Anonymous No.6835372]

How so?

[Anonymous No.6835387]

>>6835343

Philosophy became science. "Philosophy" as it exists today is an arena for academics not smart enough to study STEM disciplines. It's a pretty handy dirt trap, though, you have to admit.

[Anonymous No.6835396]

>>6835343
>>6835387

It's embarrassing obvious that neither of you has a clue about contemporary philosohpy.

[Anonymous No.6835405]

>>6835343
I think that's true to some degree. I don't think it answers things humanistically, at least not completely. Like I'm sure science can figure out the optimal path to happiness or whatever, but I don't think it could ever answer why we should be happy, you know?

[Anonymous No.6835411]

>>6835396
Enlighten us about the I.portance of ideology and logic, respectively, Mr. Zizek

[Anonymous No.6835443]

>>6835405
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835476]

>>6835411

>talking to philosophy majors

[Anonymous No.6835485]

>>6835363
>>6835367
>>6835371
>>6835372
>>6835387
>>6835396
>>6835405
>>6835411
>>6835443
>>6835476

[Anonymous No.6835719]

>>6835405
>but I don't think it could ever answer why we should be happy, you know?
holy fucking lol
>why should we be happy
philosophy majors everyone
you go on and ponder that, for the rest of us it's self evident

[Anonymous No.6835731]

>>6835719
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836099]

>>6835411
(not him)
philosophy is essential for examining our existence and shape our perception. Science is incredibly importent, but a philosophic approach to it's findings is required in order for individuals, as well as society, to truely digest their meaning.
Science is about objective research through observations, engineering is about applying scientific findings for the sake of materialistic creations. Don't you think reflection on the human experience should be covered?

[Anonymous No.6836106]

>>6836099
Why can't science reflect on the human experience?

[Anonymous No.6836111]

>>6836106
subjective as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836115]

>>6836111
You're autistic

[Anonymous No.6836148]

Sort of kind of. Science made a lot of departments of philosophy obsolete.

[Anonymous No.6836175]

>>6836106
Beacuse, that's not what science is about. Science is about objective discoveries. A scientist can build a theory about how our world functions around his different observations - To actually comprehend what scientific discoveries mean about the nature of existence, one needs knowledge of what has already been written and said in the topic. (philosophy).
Otherwise you will just end up with shallow conclusions that are ignorant of things that have been solved for years - just look at Sam Harris, he might be a doctor but no philosopher takes him seriously.

[Anonymous No.6836184]

>>6836106
Because science is a method that does not apply to the unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6836186]

>mfw science has made philosophy obsolete

[Anonymous No.6836314]

>>6835411

Most of the current discussions on philosophy and the hot topics are on consciousness atm.

[Anonymous No.6836321]

>>6836175
>>6836186
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836350]

>>6835343
reminder that mathematics/science cannot tell you whether you must use the axiom of choice.

[Anonymous No.6836706]

>>6835396
>>6835411
Samefag

[Anonymous No.6836722]

>>6835343
That explains why all PHD degrees in the sciences were phased out in Universities.

[Anonymous No.6836837]

Science can't even say what matter is.

[Anonymous No.6836847]

>>6835343

[Anonymous No.6836848]

>>6836837
Condensed energy

[Anonymous No.6836854]

>>6836848
Yeah mate, and what is energy?

[Anonymous No.6836859]

>reminder that STEM fags aspire to be freak robot schizos

[Anonymous No.6836862]

>>6836854
Wave functions that have different directions

[Anonymous No.6836876]

>>6836862
Are wave functions material or immaterial?

[Anonymous No.6836884]

>>6836876
They have both real and imaginary components

[Anonymous No.6836886]

philosophy hasn't accomplished anything useful for hundreds of years.

The useful parts of philosophy have been absorbed by mathematics such that it is actually mathematicians who become interested in philosophy that make those big leaps in logic (e.g. russel and godel) while thevast majority who have studied and trained in philosophy to begin with just write opinion pieces about nothing.

Most philosophy students actually hate logic and formal systems and want to get away from it as soon as possible so they can write continental opinion pieces about feminism and other claptrap.

[Anonymous No.6836891]

>>6836884
I didn't ask if they were real or imaginary. I asked if they were material or immaterial.

[Anonymous No.6836897]

>>6836891
Whats the difference?

[Anonymous No.6836899]

>>6836886
>philosophy hasn't accomplished anything useful for hundreds of years.

Then you don't know what philosophy is. The Humanistic, Secularist philosophy has had more impact on our civilization than Science ever has or ever will, because Science is just one of its arms.

[Anonymous No.6836903]

>>6836837
that's not a scientific question. It's very vague and open to interpretation.

However science has made and continues to make good progress at answering the question "how does matter behave and what are its properties?". Infact it makes incomparably better at answering this uestion than philosophy does.

[Anonymous No.6836904]

>>6835372
First and second laws of thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.6836905]

>>6836897
Well you're the one who thinks that science knows what matter is, so tell us what science thinks the difference between material and immaterial is.

[Anonymous No.6836906]

>>6836722
Are you joking? Academia reveres tradition, that's why PhDs are named as such.

[Anonymous No.6836912]

>>6836903
Yes, because science isn't about knowledge, it's about control. It doesn't ask what a thing is, only how it behaves, its "function". Science is about control of the natural world, just as its first propagandist Francis Bacon said, "knowledge is power".

[Anonymous No.6836916]

>>6836905
Well let's see, matter makes up reality and can be proved to exist so it is material.

[Anonymous No.6836928]

I now this is bait, but you must know that philosophy doesn't study the same as, for example, physics, and physics can't (and doesn't have any reason to) study what pertains to the philosophy field.
I mean, people that claim the same as the Op are themselves pathetic and ignorant, since they are literally confusing disciplines. Is like saying that since I became better at lifting weights I can not swim anymore. That is how much stupid it sounds.

[Anonymous No.6836931]

>>6836859
The Renaissance splendidly paved the way, through its Judaic fanaticism and its worship of the pre-scientific, for this stinking evolution towards all things seamy. This catastrophic promotion of all the world’s castrati into the Kingdom of the Arts… As a cultural manifestation of the “boys from the Freemasonic laboratories, and as claptrap even more bound-up, more constricted than Positivism, naturalism has since the Renaissance carried forth the same gigantic stupidities, the same calamitous prejudice in favor of the ultimate power of vapidity.

...

The Robot is destined to become the center-piece of the Palace of Discovery… It is he who is the end-all and be-all of so much civilizing “rationalistic” effort…admirably Naturalistic and objective (the Robot occasionally becomes intoxicated, however! the sole human trait of the Robot at this time)… Ever since the Renaissance there has been this tendency to work with ever-increasing enthusiasm towards the advent of the Kingdom of the Sciences and the Social robot.

...

I don’t see anything among all these trinkets that might truly impassion us…that might revive so much as a single fly, a living fly, a fly that flies…the cause appears to me to be understood, Renaissance, naturalism, objectivism, surrealism, the perfect progression towards the Robotic.

[Anonymous No.6836934]

>>6836916
>matter makes up reality

How does science show this?

>and can be proved to exist

How does science prove that matter exists?
Is existence itself material?

[Anonymous No.6836937]

>>6836899
what are the key theorems of "humanist secularist philosophy"?

How on earth can you have philosophy take the credit for 'humanistic secularism' when most of its most important proponents and people most responsible for the ideas that resulted in modern society becoming more secular never studied philosophy themselves?
e.g Charles Darwin.

career scientists and engineers and inventors are far more responsible for western societies' secularism than people who spent their time studying philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6836943]

>secularism

[Anonymous No.6836945]

>>6836886
>philosophy hasn't accomplished anything useful for hundreds of years.
No? Can you tell me then how wrong are the philosopers? I mean, if you make that claim, it means you have knowledge of every single philosophical publication till now. Can you explain us your refutation of Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, only for a start?

[Anonymous No.6836949]

>>6836934

[Anonymous No.6836961]

>>6836912
but philosophy can't answer "what is matter" either

the choice is between making no progress with philosophy or making a lot of progress with science.

[Anonymous No.6836965]

>>6836937
>How on earth can you have philosophy take the credit for 'humanistic secularism' when most of its most important proponents and people most responsible for the ideas that resulted in modern society becoming more secular never studied philosophy themselves?

Those that have never studied philosophy are the perfect vehicles for promoting a certain set of ideals, as Plato pointed out, because they don't understand the ideas themselves they are the lackeys of those that created them for their own ends.

>career scientists and engineers and inventors are far more responsible for western societies' secularism than people who spent their time studying philosophy.

They aren't. The people most responsible are certain Protestant sects, and Enlightenment naturalists and rationalists.

Do you know that before the word "science" ever became known to us as it is today, Francis Bacon already wrote his treatise on a new utopian society, The New Atlantis, which would be ruled by men who could control nature by knowledge of its mechanical laws? In other words, "science" as a secularist ideology was created in the mind of a philosopher before it was handed down to you as your religion.

[Anonymous No.6836970]

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

[Anonymous No.6836978]

>>6836961
>but philosophy can't answer "what is matter" either


Yes it can. Matter is the principle of individuation.

[Anonymous No.6836983]

>>6836903
>science has made and continues to make good progress at answering the question "how does matter behave and what are its properties?"
Indeed, and you are still ignorant because you don't understand that those things wich are object of the study of physics are different from those wich study philosophy.
For example, can you explain to me the principle of not contradiction (a metaphysical one) as a physicist? Or can you explain the intentional conciousness (a Huserrlian progress)? What about the metaphysical presupositions of sciences?

[Anonymous No.6836994]

>>6836886
So you're living in a free, modern, probably western country. In the post-modern era. And you think 20th century philosophy has no influence over your life. You are cute, anon, go read a book.

[Anonymous No.6837001]

>>6836945
The best metric of the lack of utility of all the people you mentioned is the fact that for no scientific or technological or medicinal role or area of inquiry are the results or theorems, if their pontifications can even be called such, of the people you mentioned necessary or useful.

As I said before, the only results of recent philosophers that have been of utility would really be more accurately thought of as mathematics or computer science.

[Anonymous No.6837017]

>>6836961
>no progress with philosophy
Can you explain what do you mean with no progress? have you even read a history of philosophy? explain to me how there is no a development in philosophy since Plato.

Also, your "argument" makes no sense, since science has a defined method (the scientific method), and when you are not working under that method, you are, in fact, not making a scientific labor. Then, the definition af things like matter, life, space (wich are presupossed on the sciences) can only be done from outside, not with a scientific method. And that endeavour is usually taken by the philosophers, since they have the preparation to do so.

[Anonymous No.6837031]

>>6836965
hahaha right the reason that science is esteemed in todays society is because Francis Bacon wrote that it would, not because it has proven itself to be useful in improving human lives and manipulating our environment and using the resources around us to our advantage.

Philosophers are so desperate to be relevant that all they make the most absurd claims of being responsible for all human thought.

In reality virtually none of humanity's progress of recent centuries has been accomplished by philosophers which to any rational human being would suggest that humanity has outgrown philosophy or that philosophy has outlived its usefulness, but to philosophy enthusiasts this is of no consequences and philosophy will remain as important to humanity for all time even though as tie goes on yet fewer people who make contributions to human progress will have studied philosophy such that it would make less and less difference (if it would even make any difference at all at the moment) whether or not all philosophy departments at all universities were suddenly stripped of funding.

[Anonymous No.6837038]

>>6836978
How does that answer anything?

[Anonymous No.6837069]

>>6837001
>lack of utility of all the people you mentioned
That is no argument. The developments in philosophical thought are true or false, regardless of you not been able to build a car with them. The Kantian epistemology of a priori knowledge may not serve you to build a house, but that doesn´t make it less true. The Husserlian development of the aprori of intentional universal correlation is extremely important in order to overcome the cartesian separation of mind and body (something wich neuroscience usually presuposses). The Husserlian develooment of the trascendental reduction leads us to the discovery of the constitution of the world, wich can overcome the kantian explanation of space and time, and serves to explain how are the mathematical, corporeal, or ideal entities make to have sense by means of the constitution wich has place on the trascendental subject. Kant himself was able to explain how the limits of reason are formed, overcoming then the german metaphysical school of thought in wich Wolff made developments wich were misguided.

But how can you know that? since it seems you only care for the "technological or medicinal" develpoment, wich means nothing in relation to the truth of the progress made (you can measure the truth of something by its capacity to build an ariplane). And for your information, that is not science development, that is a development of Techinque (wich is not scientific by itself).

Can you really bring some real argument?, because all you have said till know is the result of you being an ignorant in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6837075]

>>6837069
>>6837069
>you can measure the truth of something by its capacity to build an ariplane
I meant "you CAN'T measure the truth of something by its capacity to build an ariplane"

[Anonymous No.6837081]

>>6837031
>Philosophers are so desperate to be relevant that all they make the most absurd claims of being responsible for all human thought.
See: >>6837069
Stop being ignorant and you too bring some real arguments. The object of study for physics or biology is not hte same for philosophy. So, your claims are stupid. Read something once in a while.

[Anonymous No.6837090]

>>6836931

[Anonymous No.6837092]

>>6837017
>
Also, your "argument" makes no sense, since science has a defined method (the scientific method), and when you are not working under that method, you are, in fact, not making a scientific labor.

The scientific method was formalised in the 18th century.
Plenty of useful and correct scientific research and discovery had been accomplished before then, but the formalisation of the scientific method provided guidelines or a methodology that was useful in avoiding many pitfalls.
This is one of the last useful things philosophy has done.

>Then, the definition af things like matter, life, space (wich are presupossed on the sciences) can only be done from outside, not with a scientific method. And that endeavour is usually taken by the philosophers, since they have the preparation to do so.

HA!
"oh God help I've found the equations for the laws of motion but alas! I cannot define mater or space! Please help me, I need a trained philosopher! Oh wait who gives a shit because we will still get useful information even from convenient, place-holder definitions for now and we know that any 'true meaning' of such fundamental properties is impossible to 'know' from within this universe unless we become demiurges so philosophers would be perfectly useless in this respect."

[Anonymous No.6837099]

>>6837031
You know you are just making speculations based on your hope of philosohy being deleted, right?
The thing is, philosophy has its own field of study, for example, trascendental phenomenology is very strong in this days. And is a mostly unexplored area.
Even if the philosophy departments were to be deleted, that doesn't prove anything against the objects of study wich pertains to the philosophical inquiry. That is like saying that, if tommorrow a nuke destroys most humanity and all universities, then the discoveries of physics area all false since all physics departments have been destroyed.
Do you know how stupid and ignorant you sound?

[Anonymous No.6837105]

>>6837075
>Results prove nothing, only pedantic speculation can!
Humanities majors are pretty daft.

[Anonymous No.6837112]

>>6837069
You want me to argue that philosophy is "wrong", but that is not what I have asserted so I don't know why you are wasting your time arguing something completely different to what I have asserted.

>>philosophy hasn't accomplished anything useful for hundreds of years.
>yeah but how is philosophy wrong?

All you're doing is making yourself seem like you have difficulty understanding English.

I don't have any interest in arguing that philosophy is wrong since most of it does not possess the capacity to be right or wrong since so much of it is simply vague, subjective or untestable view-points.

You can argue with yourself about how Heidegger 'isn't wrong' if you want, I do not care.

[Anonymous No.6837124]

>>6837099
>That is like saying that

no , it is not like saying this at all, since I am talking about usefulness and relevance to humanity while you are talking about falsehood or whether transcendental phemenology is 'right or wrong'.

whether or not it is right or wrong (in the small chance that writings in the area even have the capacity to be right or wrong) it remains not useful and irrelevant.

I don't hope philogophy departments lose all funding because it makes no difference either way.

[Anonymous No.6837131]

>>6837092
>>6837092
>The scientific method was formalised in the 18th century.
What does that have to do with what I said?
>>6837092
>This is one of the last useful things philosophy has done.
No. I have already pointed to just a few of the developments of philosophy in recent times. See: >>6837069
>That is no argument. The developments in philosophical thought are true or false, regardless of you not been able to build a car with them. The Kantian epistemology of a priori knowledge may not serve you to build a house, but that doesn´t make it less true. The Husserlian development of the aprori of intentional universal correlation is extremely important in order to overcome the cartesian separation of mind and body (something wich neuroscience usually presuposses). The Husserlian develooment of the trascendental reduction leads us to the discovery of the constitution of the world, wich can overcome the kantian explanation of space and time, and serves to explain how are the mathematical, corporeal, or ideal entities make to have sense by means of the constitution wich has place on the trascendental subject. Kant himself was able to explain how the limits of reason are formed, overcoming then the german metaphysical school of thought in wich Wolff made developments wich were misguided.

Is not my fault that you can't build an airplane with them. The fact that they don't serve to build an structure doesn't make them less true.

>>6837092
>"oh God help I've found the equations for the laws of motion but alas! I cannot define mater or space! Please help me, I need a trained philosopher! Oh wait who gives a shit because we will still get useful information even from convenient, place-holder definitions for now and we know that any 'true meaning' of such fundamental properties is impossible to 'know' from within this universe unless we become demiurges so philosophers would be perfectly useless in this respect."
Are you literally retarded? or you just want to sound cool to 4chaners? Grab a book. Those definitions wich are to be perfected by philosopers are always presuposed in the sciences. Those are the metaphysical presupositions of sciences. That means that there are even metaphysical pre-judgments and ideas made by scientists, and wich cannot be treated by the scientific method. That meas that you can still make progress in sciences, but the interpretation of that progress (for example, what does the neuroscientific study of the brain means in relatin the the consciousness) can only be made from a philosophical perspective.
Do you understand? Or do I have to give you some books in order for you to stop being an ignorant.
I mean, seriously, I was on /fit/ and people there were not as retarded as posters like you.

[Anonymous No.6837147]

>>6837105
Results? I told you, the truth of something cannot be measured by its capacuty for making an airplane. For example, the metaphysical ideas in physics can be discovered (for example, the reduction and mathematization of the world), but the fact that that discovery doesn't build a plane doesn't make it less true.
Do you have an argument or are you gonna keep spouting memes? I thought /lit/ was for adults.

[Anonymous No.6837163]

>>6837131
>Those definitions wich are to be perfected by philosopers are always presuposed in the sciences. Those are the metaphysical presupositions of sciences.

lol you sound incredibly butthurt.
The fact is that any novice physics or biology student could say exactly what I have said without ever needing to pick up a book about ontology or metaphysics.

What does that say about the usefulness of philosophy when it's entirely self-evident to people with common sense anyway?
>the interpretation of that progress
Ok , give a precise problem that a neuroscientist can't solve but a philosopher can.

[Anonymous No.6837167]

>>6837112
>All you're doing is making yourself seem like you have difficulty understanding English.
Sorry. Then you can explain to me how is philosophy "simply vague, subjective or untestable view-points"? I mean, you have just made that claim, and so you must support it. And since you made a generalization it means you have already read all of the philosophical publications till now.
Now, can you start by explaining to me how is the husserlian trascendental reduction refuted? Just for a start, you know? since all of philosophy is just "vague, subjective or untestable view-points."

[Anonymous No.6837169]

It's midnight where I live so I'm going to go to bed.

My argument has already been presented and I'm confident that anyone reading it will agree that I've won unless they're a butthurt philosophy major.

[Anonymous No.6837172]

>>6835343
As long as people can waffle on with big words, philosophy can stay alive in the incestuous humanities academia

[Anonymous No.6837174]

>>6837124
>useful and irrelevant.
The fact that something is not "useful and irrelevant" for you doesn't make it less true.

[Anonymous No.6837178]

>>6837167
precisely state the central theorems or results and Ill tell you.

be quick though

[Anonymous No.6837185]

>>6837174
>>6837174
"You want me to argue that philosophy is "wrong", but that is not what I have asserted so I don't know why you are wasting your time arguing something completely different to what I have asserted.>>philosophy hasn't accomplished anything useful for hundreds of years.>yeah but how is philosophy wrong?All you're doing is making yourself seem like you have difficulty understanding English.I don't have any interest in arguing that philosophy is wrong since most of it does not possess the capacity to be right or wrong since so much of it is simply vague, subjective or untestable view-points.You can argue with yourself about how Heidegger 'isn't wrong' if you want, I do not care.
"

[Anonymous No.6837191]

>>6837178
I don´t have to. You made the claim that philosophy is "simply vague, subjective or untestable view-points", so you should support your own claims.
Sorry to break it to you, but you have to give reason of your affirmations in all sciences.

[Anonymous No.6837226]

>>6837147
For an idea to be true, it must be tested. Just because your metaphysics cannot be tested via practical and useful tests (by your own admission), does not mean it is exempt from scrutiny. Replace your metaphysical quacks with God and I would mistake you for a twelfth century scholastic.

[Anonymous No.6837232]

>>6837163
>The fact is that any novice physics or biology student could say exactly what I have said without ever needing to pick up a book about ontology or metaphysics.
Sorry, but that is false. Most can´t even explain what does mean the false mathematization of the world (wich Husserl explained) in relation to physics, and how is that related to metahpysics (for example, how that serves as a fundamentation of a reductionism wich allows physics to exist as a particular science, but doesn't allow it to study objects wich are not reduced to that metaphysical space).
>>6837163
>What does that say about the usefulness of philosophy when it's entirely self-evident to people with common sense anyway?
That isn´t entirely evident. Or can you please explain to me the apriori of intentional universal correlation? After all, its all just "self-evident to people with common sense anyway".
>>6837163
>give a precise problem that a neuroscientist can't solve but a philosopher can
The metaphysical and epistemological aspects of that science, for a start. Also, the trascendental subject (wich gives place to the natural world).

[Anonymous No.6837239]

>>6837185
See: >>6837167
Can you read?

[Anonymous No.6837261]

>>6837232
Grade A troll. You should post on /sci/ sometime for epic bates :)

[Anonymous No.6837262]

>>6837191
ok, coward.
le's start here
http://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-red/
>There is an experience in which it is possible for us to come to the world with no knowledge or preconceptions in hand; it is the experience of astonishment.
opinion/viewpoint. I can be astonished about one thing but still have knowledge or beliefs about something else, or about some other aspect of that thing.
>The “knowing” we have in this experience stands in stark contrast to the “knowing” we have in our everyday lives, where we come to the world with theory and “knowledge” in hand, our minds already made up before we ever engage the world.
opinion/view-point. one could easily assert that astonishment is what occurs when you have a belief that is shown to be very wrong. there are many instances where a person has no knowledge on whole area and has not thought about it at all yet is not astonished when they learn about it, for example a 15 year old likely has no knowledge of formal languages and automata et if you sat him down in a lecture on formal languages and automata he may or may not be astonished. is a baby necessarily astonished if you show them something completely new? it depends on the thing.
> However, in the experience of astonishment, our everyday “knowing,” when compared to the “knowing” that we experience in astonishment, is shown up as a pale epistemological imposter and is reduced to mere opinion by comparison
opinion/viewpoint. that's a very personal experience of astonishment.others could easily be different.

I've just gone thought the first paragraph and it is nothing but subjective and untestable viewpoints which sound somewhat reasonable but are just viewpoints none the less.
And you're unwilling to state any of the central theorems (I suspect because like nearly all philosophy there aren't any) so I see no reason to continue.

[Anonymous No.6837266]

>>6837226
>Just because your metaphysics cannot be tested via practical and useful tests (by your own admission), does not mean it is exempt from scrutiny
I never said that. And you are so ignorant and stupid that you really believe that metaphysics talks about ghosts and christian spirits. Also, philosophy doesnt reduce to metahpysics, fyi.
Philosophical inquiry is not the same as the scientific one. The objects of study are different, so you can't aske the same method.
Also, who said they are not "tested"? you can test your self the efectiveness of the phenomenological reduction to destroy the cartesian dualism. You can see by yourlsef how the husserlian intentional mind agrees with the neuroscientific discoveries.
But you won't, since it seems that for some reason you don't like people studying things you don't know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.6837270]

>>6837261
>arguments=0
How pathetic can you get?

[Anonymous No.6837279]

>>6837232
>>give a precise problem
>>give a precise problem
>>give a precise problem
I'm not surprised that you did not.

>Or can you please explain to me the apriori of intentional universal correlation?
I'm not familiar with that jargon but I'm actually extremely confident that I could explain it and resolve it in as far as it is relevant to human progress were it posed precisely and in the language of a layperson.

but I'm actually going to sleep now

[Anonymous No.6837288]

philosophy when you learn?

[Anonymous No.6837292]

>>6837279
>post it in dumbass terms and ill show you!!
how fucking rekt can you get?

[Anonymous No.6837296]

All I got from this thread is that philosophy seeks the truth but has absolutely no way to determine it because everything can be asked "well how do you REALLY know? Huh?", then repeated until someone is called a faggot.

No wonder postmodernism is so popular now, it's the only way philosophy can be relevant again.

[Anonymous No.6837300]

>>6837279
>i-i could explian it if it were explained for retards
shit m8. You were the one who wanted to talk about philosophy. I will put you something easy then:
Explain to me the consciousness as a mere neuroscientist. Nothing more. That one is easy.
>>6837279
>I'm not surprised that you did not.
I told you, the trascendental subject.

[Anonymous No.6837308]

>>6837296
>i won't give any arguments: the poster
Stay mad :)

[Anonymous No.6837329]

>>6837300
>>6837292
>>6837292
>lel what do you mean you don't know Sanskrit are you stupid lol fucking wrekt I win no take-backs
Seems like you don't have much faith in what you're asserting if you don't want the person you're arguing with to understand what you're asserting.

>Explain to me the consciousness as a mere neuroscientist.
this isn't a precise question. what do you want to know about it?

>the transcendental subject
This isn't even a question, nor is it precise.

[Anonymous No.6837364]

>>6837300
Consiousness is the result of a myriad of biochemical reactions and interactions that produce electrochemical signals between millions, if not billions, of nerve cells. That's why consiousness can be altered/ceased with specific chemicals, like with ethanol or phencyclidine.

[Anonymous No.6837373]

>>6837300
>>Explain to me the consciousness as a mere neuroscientist.

we haven't 'solved' consciousness in its entirety yet but there has been scientific progress that philosophers would never have discovered from their writing desks.

For example we understand pretty well how desensitisation happens as a relatively simple neuronal loop, whereby a receptor organ under constant , steady stimulation can end up ceasing to send action potentials stating that it is receiving stimulation until the stimulation changes. This neuronal loop was studied in sea-anenmones (if you start gently stroking a sea-anemone then its extensions will be retracted, but if you continue gently stroking the anemone then its extensions will gradually be released again until you significantly change the way you are stroking) and similar neuronal loop structures are found in many other animals and likely work the same way that we cease to notice an ever-present smell.
more work needs to be done but is a clear example of scientific inquiry making progress to finding out about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6837377]

>>6837262
>>There is an experience in which it is possible for us to come to the world with no knowledge or preconceptions in hand; it is the experience of astonishment.
>opinion/viewpoint. I can be astonished about one thing but still have knowledge or beliefs about something else, or about some other aspect of that thing.
Are you retarded? you do know that you are reading an introduction wich is mostly vague (since it only introduces)?
Anyway, that introduction is not exactly on point. It seems that it refers to the experience of the trascendental reduction, but that one is only reached in order to see how things in the world are being made by the constitution (wich is done by the trascendental subject). So, that part is bad written, since that reduction doesnt means that you have no beliefs, it only means that you are able to see how they are formed trought the huserrlian constitution.

>>6837262
>>The “knowing” we have in this experience stands in stark contrast to the “knowing” we have in our everyday lives, where we come to the world with theory and “knowledge” in hand, our minds already made up before we ever engage the world.
>opinion/view-point.
Sorry, but no. It is not just viewpoint, since, as long as that text refers to the trascendental reduction, the phenomenological ego is by definiton different from the natural ego, as long as it serves to observe the actions of the trascendental ego.

What you are answering has nothing to do with the fucking text, m8. Have you ever read something that is not children's books?

>>6837262
>> However, in the experience of astonishment, our everyday “knowing,” when compared to the “knowing” that we experience in astonishment, is shown up as a pale epistemological imposter and is reduced to mere opinion by comparison
>opinion/viewpoint. that's a very personal experience of astonishment.others could easily be different.
Again, your answer has nothing to do with the text.
It refers to the fact that the viewpont reached in the phenomenological trascendental reduction allows us to see how the world comes to be by means of the constitution, and that is why is suggested as a "pale epistemological imposter", since it only comes to be by means of an operation of the body and intellect, executed by the trascedental ego.

Sorry, m8. But youhave just proved how retarded you are. Also, the next time you want to discuss philosophy better have some knowledge about the subject you want to discuss
>this is the kind of people that bash philosophers
No wonder.

[Anonymous No.6837404]

>>6837329
>Seems like you don't have much faith in what you're asserting if you don't want the person you're arguing with to understand what you're asserting.
Are you literally retarded? can´t you read? I told him to explain another more simple stuff. Also, when you want to talk about a discipine, you better have some knowledge about it, otherwise, why talk about it? its just stupid. So, you cant balme no one but the other guy for not knowing the technical terms, since he wanted to discuss this subjects

>>6837329
>what do you want to know about it?
Its intentionality, please.

>>6837329
>>the transcendental subject
>This isn't even a question, nor is it precise.
It is precise, since it refers to a very precise concept, the fact that you dont understand it has nothing to do with it, it only means you dont have experience in phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.6837410]

>>6837364
You told me how it is produced and altered, but you have no talked or defined consciousness, not even adressed its essence.
Also, consciousness does not equal brain or electrical impulses, fyi.

[Anonymous No.6837415]

>>6837377
All of my points address the text as it is written m80

without any definitions provided in the text as of that point and since you had failed, as ever to precisely state the central theorems of the thing you were challenging me to address, naturally I interpreted the text according to the English language.

no need to get butthhurt.

[Anonymous No.6837424]

>>6837373
Sorry, but no.
You CAN explain to me consciousness, since it is not the subject of neuroscience.
Neuroscience studies brain and eletrical impulses, and only indirectly refers to the consciousness.
For example, explain, from a neuroscientific perspective the trascendental ego, wich is the one that forms the natural ego, by means of the constitution. That is philosophy, you know
>inb4 i dont know what that means
You wanted to talk about philosophy, I dont go around bashing scientist when they use technical terms.

[Anonymous No.6837434]

>>6837415
The thing is, you didnt understand it because you dont know phenomenology. That text is not good just because it is an encycolpedia. That text is good for people wich already handle the basics.

[Anonymous No.6837436]

>>6837404
>Its intentionality, please.
neuroscience and psychology have not gotten that far yet.
>HA GOT YOU
not really, this would be like saying that all of physics is wrong and needs philosophy just because there are some contradictory implications between conventional quantum mechanics and conventional general relativity.

Either way it will be science that gains better knowledge and understanding of how the brain or laws of physics work, not people who study philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6837452]

>>6837436
>neuroscience and psychology have not gotten that far yet.
Lel. Intentionality is a philosohpical husserlian concept. It is used to explain the essence and functioning of the mind. Look it up. Without it you cant efectively explain how experience comes to be. No need of neurosciencie, m8.

>>6837436
>Either way it will be science that gains better knowledge and understanding of how the brain or laws of physics work, not people who study philosophy
>i will say this without any arguments, just because yes, since i ran out of arguments
M8, I just showed you the neccesity of philosophy. And the fact that the objects of philosophy cant be studied by science, otherwise there would be no sciences, since there wouldn't exist a separation of objects of study.

[Anonymous No.6837460]

>>6837424
the study of neuroscience is how the brain works, consciousness is part of that :)
I just gave you an example of how neuroscience has literally made tangible progress in understanding how brains or neuronal networks are conscious of certain stimuli.
>b-b-but you can't know nuthin
lol
>the trascendental ego, wich is the one that forms the natural ego, by means of the constitution

hahaha the ego? That's something freud made up and has no scientific evidence for.
lol philosophers are to the study of the brain what witchdoctors are to the study of medicine.

lol you clown.

[Anonymous No.6837472]

>>6837410
That is the definition of what consiousness is when it comes to life on Earth, which you are a part of if you've forgetten that
What on earth do you mean by 'addressed it's essence'
Consiousness is a product of the brain, yes. If you think otherwise, then define it in a way that doesn't involve a word that ends in '-ism'

[Anonymous No.6837493]

>>6837452
intentionality is how the mind represents properties and states of affairs.

so yes, like I said neuroscience has not gotten that far yet.

If you aren't actually interested in understanding how the brain works then just admit it and you can be left alone to your vague , useless view-point masturbation in peace.

>>6837434
I asked you repeatedly to state what the central results of transcendental reduction were but you naturally declined since you knew that it did not have any key results or theorems, only vague and subjective view-points, so naturally I went to another source on the topic of transcendental reduction and what I found was exactly subjective, vague, untestable view-points.


which serves as a vindication of the original claim
>>6837112
>I don't have any interest in arguing that philosophy is wrong since most of it does not possess the capacity to be right or wrong since so much of it is simply vague, subjective or untestable view-points.

[Anonymous No.6837496]

>>6835343
nah

[Anonymous No.6837552]

looks like I won.

[Anonymous No.6837564]

>>6837552
your a faggot

[Anonymous No.6837566]

>>6837564
no need to get butthurt, philosotard

[Anonymous No.6837614]

>>6837460
>I just gave you an example of how neuroscience has literally made tangible progress in understanding how brains or neuronal networks are conscious of certain stimuli.
Are you retarded? All that has been accomplished is the description of a biochemical process. Desensitization of receptors, however well-understood, says nothing about consciousness. You might as well claim that knowledge about desensitization of insulin receptors in diabetic patients tells us about how fat cells have consciousness, or that knowledge about the movements of the planets tells us about the consciousness of the solar system.

[Anonymous No.6837616]

>>6836886
define "useful"

[Anonymous No.6837627]

>>6835343

>Tfw scientificism is a philosophical standpoint

[Anonymous No.6837644]

>>6837614
Define consiousness, if you're so great

[Anonymous No.6838547]

>>6836859
>mfw litfags aspire to be a irish pirate with a fart fetish

[Anonymous No.6838569]

>>6837614
>consciousness is rainbow magic
Nah, it's emergent from patterns of activation in the brain. You can tell because anesthesia works.
Outside of neuroscience, there's some tentative information-theoretic attempts to define this as a generalizable property of matter lately.

[Anonymous No.6838914]

>>6835343
The point of science and philosophy aren't to achieve an absolute truth, the point is that they allow us to strive towards that absolute truth. Process, not goal. Neither one will be obsolete until we understand everything about the universe and everything that may exist within it and beyond it.

It's a lot like trying to write a book. When you're writing the book your ultimate goal is to finish it, but once you're done you stop.

[Anonymous No.6839515]

>>6837614
Hahaha lol you think that there's no link between neuronal desensitisation and not being conscious of stimuli like for instance background smells?

You're the one extrapolating ridiculous things like fat cells and the solar system being conscious, btw , cells in the pancreas become desensitised by a totally different process to neuronal loop desensitisation, they're incomparable. At no point was it claimed that desensitisation was sufficient or necessary for consciousness, just that it was clearly a part of human consciousness and it is something that neuroscience has investigated well and that human beings now understand thanks to their efforts.

Btw keep on asking "are you retarded?" As though it's the only insult you possess, you halfwit.

[Anonymous No.6839552]

>>6836884
its not actually "imaginary" though, the values exist on a different number line its a fault of the name

[Anonymous No.6839561]

>>6838569
>Nah, it's emergent from patterns of activation in the brain. You can tell because anesthesia works.
When you induce general anaesthesia, you observe nothing about the patient's consciousness. All you see is a biological reaction (eyes closing, muscles relaxing etc.) which, again, is in principle no different from any other physical event, like for instance that of the moon waning (which one might call the moon losing consciousness if one first presupposes the presence of a consciousness which itself cannot be observed, and then presupposes that certain physical signs are connected to the state of this consciousness), or for that matter a computer shutting down. (Are computers conscious? How would you know?)

>>6839515
>Btw keep on asking "are you retarded?" As though it's the only insult you possess, you halfwit.
It's a legitimate question though.

[Anonymous No.6839584]

>>6836970
/thread

[Anonymous No.6839598]

>>6837493
>intentionality is how the mind
what mind ?

the mind does not exist. what mind are you talking about ?

[Anonymous No.6839601]

>>6837262
>>>There is an experience in which it is possible for us to come to the world with no knowledge or preconceptions in hand; it is the experience of astonishment.


if a person is astonished, it is only because she had prejudices beforehand

[Anonymous No.6839610]

>>6835343
Not philosophy. It has made philosophers obsolete. Big difference there.
Today scientists ask and answer philosophical questions.
In the future, it will be the emerging AI.

[Anonymous No.6839670]

>>6839598
the living brains of most humans and other animals with a complex enough neural network (we have not yet discovered enough about the workings of neural networks to say what features or amounts of complexity are needed in order for certain properties of the mind e.g. long term memory to be present).

unsurprising that you're hiding behind semantics now that your assertion that you can't know nuthin about consciousness has been refuted.

[Anonymous No.6839675]

>>6836970
philosophy which does not need to be studied and is obvious enough that people reach that conclusion without ever hearinghte words phemonology, ontology, metaphysics, etc. is simply common sense and demonstrates that the utility towards human progress of studying philosophy in itself is negligible.

[Anonymous No.6839680]

>>6839561
I define consiousness as the process that allows us to think abstractly.
Now you define consiousness.