[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 89 KB, 640x959, D32A243E-8D22-4DE0-808C-54661BFCF41B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11360140 No.11360140 [Reply] [Original]

Red pill me on analytical philosophy. To me it seems useful up to a point, in creating coherence between and testing intuitions and held axioms. People like Singer and Parfit seems to have had some influence on how people actually think. But when I look at actual research papers, it just seems like low-key insanity. Hundreds of pages of these ramblings on metaethics that lay claim to say something about reality, most with zero citations.

Basically, I feel like at some point you're just spouting a certain rhetoric, playing the "game" of analytical philosophy. My suspicion then is that these people just can't deal with the fundamentally mysterious aspects of life, and use this type of philosophy as a sort of comforting escapism.

Contrast this with math, that whatever it means, can at least be falsified in a rigorous way. Whereas it would seem a lot of analytical philosophy is only ever understood by the author and his/her supervisor.

So am I onto something or is it just 2deep4me?

>> No.11360150
File: 177 KB, 528x382, Family.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11360150

>>11360140
Have children.

>> No.11360233

>>11360150
t. birther

>> No.11360250

>>11360140
Big boobies.

>> No.11360262

>>11360140
The reason your thread has no genuine replies is because you are correct. It is as valuable as interpretive football.

>> No.11360337

>>11360262
Really? Are you aware of any writing on this topic?

>> No.11360589
File: 192 KB, 960x956, popsci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11360589

>>11360140
You don't get to criticize philosophy journals when you haven't even read the meditations. You're not ready for all academic work just because you got an A+ in your calc course.

Pic related. Which camp do you belong to?

>> No.11360604

>>11360589
>retards still post this image that makes no sense

>> No.11360615

>>11360604
t. stemlord

>> No.11360619

>>11360604
The image makes total sense because the right column is full of sellout clown besides based Hawking.
>>11360140
Contemporary philosophy is trash and always will be cuz of the test of time; the classics are all you need.

>> No.11360709

>>11360140
Philosophy is for people who are too dumb for science but still have really strong opinions about how the world should work

>> No.11360738

>>11360709
Yeah, that's why the best scientifics usually end up writing about philosophy and not the other way around

>> No.11361636

>>11360589
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The ethics of Meditations is not analytical philosophy, and certainly not metaethics.

>> No.11361821

>>11360589
None of them are strictly speaking wrong, but the left column represents a deeper understanding, or perhaps a more detailed perspective. Since having more detail is better, more comprehensive, we should with confidence say that they are more right.