/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6283997
>ethics
>is solved by common sense

k

>>5805001
>he
Last time I checked Immanuel Kant had been a male. I could be wrong though.

Ethics of science general.

-Environmentalism and Geo-engineering
-Animal Rights
-Biological Experiments
-Physics Experiments
-Use and misuse of Chemicals
-AI rights (fuck it, if corporations get rights AI should get rights by default)

/sci/, I'm facing a philosophical and rational struggle. I am genuinely seeking a path to clarity on this one.

I have generally identified with the Faith-less as far as religion is concerned. (Please don't let this turn you off.) But over the past month I have been reading Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologicae" and Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and now, in my mind, there exists a strong inclination towards Deism—the rational deduction of the existence of a Creator entity.

/sci/'s thoughts? I am pretty sure this will 404, though.

Its so fucking simple.
Treat others how you would like to be treated.
What part don't you understand???
People have written 100s of books on this but in the end it boils down to that.

What do Kant basically says in the Critical of Pure Reason? What's the point of this hundred of pages looking like reasonings?

Thanks.

>implying we aren't already immortal

Is there an online repository of mathematical symbols and notations? I've seen the wikipedia one, but that's not at all comprehensive in regards to cataloging notation in its entirety.

>>3127230
He's from Ancient Aliens on History Channel.

>>3076296

time is not a property of an object. it is the form of an object, just like space.

pic related.

Hey, /sci/, I've been assigned to this paper and, to be honest, I don't really know how to finish it.
See, I have to explain everything that we know about the "truth", but the problem is that in the end of my essay I have to give two or three examples of theories of absolute truth in philosophy, which is very hard, because all I could find is "requirements" for absolute truth, but there were no theories about it.

It would be wonderful, I you could help me out.
Thanks in advance!

Hey, /sci/, I've been assigned to this paper and, to be honest, I don't really know how to finish it.
See, I have to explain everything that we know about the "truth", but the problem is that in the end of my essay I have to give two or three examples of theories of absolute truth in philosophy, which is very hard, because all I could find is "requirements" for absolute truth, but there were no theories about it.

It would be wonderful, I you could help me out.
Thanks in advance!

>>2963562
Bitches don't know about my Synthetic A Priori Propositions!

>>2940468

Kant would like to have a word with you about the noumenon.

What are you talking about guys, space and time are merely abilities of our brain that it uses to perceive a reality that we just cannot grasp as it is, because it is processed through these functions as first.
That's why math is so irrevocable: it makes statements about these abilities and since every human being has them, noone can disagree.

What are you talking about guys, space and time are merely abilities of our brain that it uses to perceive a reality that we just cannot grasp as it is, because it is processed through these functions as first.
That's why math is so irrevocable: it makes statements about these abilities and since every human being has them, noone can disagree.

>>2601387

No, math is synthetic a priori.

If it were analytic, then "A triangle has three angles that sum to 180 degrees" would be true by definition alone. But, it can be false that the angles of a triangle sum to 180, e.g. in a non euclidean space.

How come all geniuses have big heads?

Why aren't there any movies about philosophers?

Coming this Summer...

*BOOM BOOM*

The man who deliberatly destroyed dogmatic metaphysics...

*BOOM BOOM*

...is back!

(epic choir music while scenes of Kant writing stuff and walking flash by)

*BOOM*

in three a priori dimensions

>>2032138
Critique of Pure Reason isn't an easy read either.

'The Republic' by Plato is my recommendation OP.

>>1708779
just woken up. Wassup?

>>1678990An atheist is forced to accept moral relativism

Incorrect.

>>1599064

Hey I invented that argument!

>>1593219

Of course you can't be 100% sure of anything. That's the sceptical hypothesis!

There is -almost- nothing wrong with justified true belief, the Gettier problem just points out that the definition isn't complete and prone to mistakes.
Try to see it as an motivation to keep your guard up and keep asking questions. After all, that's what real philosphy is all about: critical thinking.