/sci/ - Science & Math

The ones that never shut up.

Wittgenstein, Hume, Schopenhauer

Zeno, everyone else says the obvious.

The discovery of how Grid Cells work is a great show of his genius vision.

>dat Euclidean assessment of space

Wittgenstein

>>5565242
>>5565276
I like that you guys like Wittgenstein, his Tractatus's form is the same as mine.

Here's a link to it;

http://calculatingexistence.webs.com/calculating%20existence.pdf

julius evola because germans are the niggers of philosophy

The Giver

Piaget, anyone else can't into epistemology

Kant, because his "categoric imperative" describes the inner voice

Dalai Lama, because he delivers ethic values without neglecting modern science

C.F. Weizsäcker, because he applies quantum stuff and atomic bombs to us as economic and rational beings

>>5565220
Bertrand Russell

>>5565330
what's the source for Weizsaecker?

Zerzan or Adorno.

Max Stirner, because emotivism is the only valid ethical framework.

I really like Foucault's ethical and moral distance to the subjects he discusses, although apparently he wasn't a very good as a historian. His discussion of how the works of Freud and Marx are different from other theories is incredibly interesting, also he discusses how idea of 'the author' has changed in the natural sciences too

https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/74858352/FoucaultWhatIsAnAuthor.pdf

bottom of page ten onward

>>5565357
It's called "Die Tragweite der Wissenschaften", not sure it it was translated into english

>>5565365

Narcissism.

>>5565305
MrMomsen, is that you?

I might be a casual, but Kierkegaard is my favourite even though he does not discuss much about science related stuff.

I like him because I can apply his philospophy to many situations and problems.

My favourite quote from him:
>A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.

>>5565253
this.
Also, Schopenhauer.
And Nietzsche just for the lulz.

This guy, because he's insane enough.

spinoza

>>5565407
nope

i think he ded

Wittgenstein, GE Moore.

Both were getting at the same kind of philosophical content.

I think these guys ended philosophy. They just depict things so clearly that there really becomes nothing more dispute. A good reading of Wittgenstein is like therapy that permits you to get on with your life. Most everything else called "philosophy" is really just an introduction to some artificial controversy.

Rockefeller.

He understands capitalism.

>>5565533
I think Witt helps with analytical quandaries and let's you get back to things but in the end I still have to tug on Schopenhauer.

>>5565544

What does it mean to "tug on Schopenhauer"?

Isnt Schopenhauer just a weak Nietzsche?

>>5565535
lel, drilling oil and use illegal methods to gain monopoly is truly capitalism.

>>5565556
I mean I still rely on some of Schopenhauer's ideas to deal with life. Wittgenstein's therapeutic methods help me manage a great deal of philosophical quandaries but part of my own desires involve metaphysics and a methodology is not a metaphysic.

I know a guy whose favorite is Nietzsche. Why? I don't fuckin' know.

I don't get into philosophy, myself.

Aristoteles.
Platon and Sokrates are small time.

Don't even get me started on how, as usual, the English language butches their names.

>>5565608

What metaphysical object are you trying to deal with? I dont quite understand you.

>>5565220
Cunt and Niche. sorry Kant and Nietzsche

Plato because the Republic.

One of the ones who can do maths.

That is to say one of the mathematicians who decided to dabble in philosophy as well.

>>5565694
> what metaphysical object are you trying to deal with
wut

Do you know what metaphysics is?

>having a favorite philosopher
>not creating your own philosophy

>that feel when not adulterated by predetermined philosophies

>>5565608
Zizick lrn2

>>5566001
even if you area philosophy major you can have some you take more of, ie: favourite. then make your own. mine is combination of Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, and last of all ZIzeck. but politik fuck germans oh well, at least i listn to real.

>>5565988

I thought I did. Where did I go wrong?

>>5565958
They are the best. Kant, Husserl, Godel, Tarski, Whitehead, Russell, Pierce, Kripke Carnap, Hempel, Quine and Lewis are all great modern (post-modern) philosophers. However, I think this leaves out Rorty, Davidson, and many philosophers of science.

>>5566001
Everyone has their own philosophy to an extent, but to create the said philosophy, you need to be well read on the various problems brought up.

>>5566035
More than agree.

Used to be Hume, and probably still is, but I just finished the Transcendental Aesthetic and omigod

>Dat brain

How do even get this smart?

>>5566035
>that feel when when never read a thing in my life
>that feel when i describe things ive thought of and think they are original
>that bad feel when im told they mirror almost exactly what some other guy said a thousand years ago
>then the eventual feel of knowing that i thought of something some guy thought of a thousand years ago

can you even reincarnation!?

>>5565242
>Hume
>Schopenhauer

>>5565330
>Dalai Lama, because he delivers ethic values without neglecting modern science
He still believes in duality

Heidegger

>>5565675
>implying Nichomachean Ethics is shit compared to Republic
Czech ya self, prior hence wrecking thyself

>>5566088

Who wrote that, and what is the specific title? If you would be so kind could you direct me to a .pdf or some way to read it?

I wish to observe philosophical genius.

>>5566169
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Transcendental_Aesthetic

I am the best philosopher of all times.

>>5566109
Never been much of a leg man myself, but jesus christ... those are...

.
.
.
transcendental

Peter singer because he makes people who aren't vegetarians sound silly.

>>5566265

and by 'silly' you mean not pretentious douchebags

>>5566430
vegies only become pretensions douchebags because of the hostility they for some reason provoke. lots of people espousing positions of morality behave similarly as a defence mechanism.

i doubt any one of you is anything but an 'arm chair philosopher'

>>5566541
what is an "armchair philosopher"?

>>5566564

Me!

But to tell the truth, I do have a degree in philosophy

>>5566541
After reading what an THAT is, i cant discern what the actual difference is between a real philosopher and an armchair. they are both in the realm of the mind, and cant be manifested beyond self, and is restricted from any other physicality except your body and yourself.

The thoughts taht are based on physical observation are inherently external from self, and are able to be contemplated beyond "thoughts" but can rather be examined with the senses, and questioned objectively as an "Experience" to validate the philosophy of it.

>>5566585
so really there is no such thing as an "armchair" philosopher. all philosophy is in fact "philosophy", regardless.

Feyerabend because science is shit.

>>5565220

>>5566604

And useless.
At least that's what my major advisor told me.

>>5566609

Then he/she is an idiot

Spinoza

Because he presents a very cold and beautiful explanation of human activity and affects without resorting to the slanders of moralisms and idealisms borne out of a complete lack of psychological intuition. Out of all the philosophers, he strikes me as the best psychologist (exception maybe being Nietzsche).

He's one of my inspirations for working towards a major in neuroscience/psychopharmacology.

>>5566623

Well, they were paying him to teach Philosophy, so he might not have been as dumb as he looked.

>>5566609
Nothing is useless if it is utilized for ones own betterment, and the people around them? Why develop your mind, and then expand its capacity for understanding and perception and then call it useless? If you ahve the ability to understand and resolve complex ideas and concepts, shouldnt you allow yourself to share them and express them in a way that would be beneficial? It might be "uesless" in the job market, but maybe if every politician had a degree in philosophy, maybe there wouldnt be suych a broken job market.

Philosophy has many uses, even in this statement there is philosophy, and in every single thing that exists and that we perceive there is philosophy. without philosophy, there is nothing. As the river flows, the leaves fall. but the wind does not blow.

mmmwisdom~

>>5566625
you will be extremely successful in those majors if you apply true philosophy to them. Its got some serious potential to be revolutionary. Do something good man!

>>5566109
You're not special, this happens all the time. The only thing that distinguishes a philosopher when it comes to their school of thought is their ability to perceive their school and to articulate its teachings.

>>5566661
that is not philosophy. That is simply learning. Anyone can learn the ins and outs of a thought and concept. But to create a concept is...

is what you described what it means to get a degree in philosophy?

Because when it comes down to it, there is no perception involved in LEARNING a school of thought, and regurgitating it.

i dont limit myself to a particular idea. i explore it all.