[ 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: 5 KB, 250x247, 1461130726099s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8894555 No.8894555 [Reply] [Original]

1. How is it possible to care about philosophy when you realise that you are literally flailing about within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable possibilities? The only difference between STEM and other parts of philosophy is that in STEM the axioms and criteria for validity are more widely accepted. That's it.

2. What the hell can a non-STEM philosopher who works at Harvard or Oxford POSSIBLY have to say, that is either / both: non-trivial or uses axioms that are extremely widely accepted? It never happens!

3. Why do people pretend that "objective" morality exists? Why isn't it acknowledged that in a non-universally Christian society without a widespread belief in a god who is external to the universe, the idea of "objectivity" collapses in to a trivial "whatever I define it to be" (a human definition").

Replace "morality" and "objective" with "quiggle" and "bibble" respectively, two terms with arbitrary definitions. Does bibble quiggle exist? This shows how absurd people are in thinking that philosophers can have anything to say. I just provided two arbitrarily defined words that we can argue about for the next 2000 years? So why do philosophers not talk about bibble quiggle or "Does an objective list of rules for Football exist?"? That's easy to answer. (NOTE: THE ANSWER RELATES TO "PRACTICE OF PHILOSPHY", NOT "PHILOSOPHY" I'm not I shitting on reasoning itself). The answer is that philosophers are instantly drawn to the important sounding questions in order to gain attention and funding. They flee any field that has been colonised with scientists who use maths at a greater than high school level, even though they truthfully tell us that the scientific method is merely one out of infinitely many methods.

Note: AT ROOT, I simply point out the trivial conclusion that an unfalsifiable system is infinitely large. So I don't even shit on philosophers or the pseudo intellectual hangers on. THEY shit on everyone else because other people didn't bother learning their ONE particular self referential system out of the INFINITE possible number. Don't ask me why I shit on unfalsifiability. I don't. Ask why Philosophers, as Philosophy is currently practised, shit on everything other than themselves.

>> No.8894558

BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!

>> No.8894576

>Why do people pretend that "objective" morality exists?

Because it does.

>> No.8894578

That's an interesting philosophy you've got my man.

>> No.8894586
File: 180 KB, 500x599, 1482781551174.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8894586

>>8894555 (You)
Keep it up my man! proud of you

>> No.8894853

I'm 16 and I just realised that nothing really mattress: The Post

>> No.8894927

1. Why care about anything, man?
2. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm - very simple, well known example. An axiom that most people will agree with results in a moral philosophy that is no longer trivial for most people
3. Of course morals are human made, what's your point? And what you believe doesn't matter if you kill someone for no reason, you're going to get punished in any country, because there is an objective (or as close as it gets) moral argument against murder..