Why don't you study philosophy, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11451835]

Don't you know you'll never really know what you're doing without a good background in metaphysics and epistemology?

[Anonymous No.11451849]

Where is philosophy discussed in 4chan?

[Anonymous No.11451856]

>>11451835
They are brainlets who think philosophy is somehow opposed to science, when in reality philosophy is the foundation of science and has guided the greatest scientists in history until the last few decades. It would be nice if all universities required just one course in philosophy, just so these retards could know what philosophy is instead of attacking something they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11451862]

>>11451849
/lit/ & /sci/ mostly

[Anonymous No.11451871]

Isn't there another thread about this topic active right now?

A decade ago, I went into physics at a hunch, but since the 5th semester had often questioned whether I should have gone into literature or philosophy. I dated a bunch of philosophy student as I really like hearing them talk and learn from it, so that's my angle. I got a few texts, e.g. this old book series by Mach that I never really started in honesty. I read some Kuhn and Hegel and I suppose half of Wittgensteins works (ALL THE BOOKS).

Regarding your statement, I don't think learning those things does fundamentally make you "understand", but I also think it's fun an interesting.

Is there anything you recommend in particular? I've got a broad birdseye view on the history of philosopy post Hume and, to contribute, I recommend the 100 or so videos by this diseased Theologian of the Weaton collage
https://youtu.be/ARarjQYOhA4

>>11451849
A variant of academic philospohy is found on /lit/. It's what you'd expect, strong tribes are Hegelian dialectic memes, all the way up through Deluze to Landian acc. And the right wingers (Spengler, maybe even Evola, and Ted if you count him) between modernism all through postmodernism.

>>11451856
I'm skeptical whether people are susceptible. Feynman had to do more liberal courses and didn't take anything away from it. Some people are just "engineers at heard", want to use their hands and not contemplate the problem of induction if they don't get anywhere after 30 minutes.
Physicists often end an argument with "this is absurd, so it can't be true" mentality.

>>11451862
Uninformed cheering for one or the other interpretation of quantum mechanics is not what I'd call philosophy discussions.

[Anonymous No.11451936]

>>11451871
Since we are on /sci/ and you mentioned Evola, what do you make of his deep interest and passion for what is termed “magic”?
Also. Where should I start with Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.11451963]

>>11451835
>metaphysics and epistemology
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11451970]

>>11451835
Philosophy is retarded and a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11451990]

>>11451871
Feynman studied philosophy and discussed philosophy with philosophers at length. His issue with philosophers was that many of them were pretentious pseuds who would state truisms in overly abstruse language just to appear smart. This kind of thing is unfortunately rampant in philosophy departments, as opposed to science departments where you can't fake competence or intellect. Still, this doesn't take away from the fact that philosophy is an important branch of human thought whose luminaries rival the greatest men of science.

[Anonymous No.11452018]

>>11451936
More broadly, what many (and I mostly mean people who'd go on 4chan) call "magic" or "magical effect" is akin to "self-fulfilling prophecy". If you look at old Jewish praxis or even orthodox Christian rituals and Hermeticism, there's this kind of power in action. Doing "useless" things like going through the pains of making a tie everyday instead of wearing baggy sports pants to work will have an effect on you and your status. Going to church and eating thin bread has a positive effect that has so many parameters, it's not feasible to describe it in detail but only sum it up in coarse psychological descriptions. As a physicist, I don't think you can cast a spell to change the weather tomorrow, but in the above "self-fulfilling profecy kind of way", there's an effect of writing stuff on your door. Or even getting together and saying spells against somebody you and your friends don't like. It's not Game of Thrones magic, it's repetition and ritual bound to rules of community.
In theory, Marx is a material historian and so the complete opposite of the right wing thinkers like evola, who's conceptualization of living beings, i.e. his Fascism, is very far away from economic considerations and the associated rhetoric. Jocks on a football game chanting around is "esoteric fasism" in this sense. Or any war roar, for that matter.

>>11451970
What is not a waste of time? Making babies? Avoiding painful situations to live for cake and pussy? I mean I accept those as answers, but one may just as well take such an hedonistic or duty driven ideology (or you tell me what it is, I can't tell from a sentence), and compare the joy of reading philosophy (may it be late-modern epistemology in Wittgensteins post Gödel attempts of capturing the world in first order logic or just moral tale of a Dostoevsky novel) with the joy of sitting in the sun on a beautiful day. What's wasted time in the first place?

[Anonymous No.11452025]

>>11451835
i do, reading some philosophy (both epistemology and general) and history helps you switch to another part of your brain and let the "math-physics" part rest

>>11451990
>> you can't fake competence or intellect
lol

[Anonymous No.11452036]

Bold of you to assume that I don't.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
>>11451963
>>11451970
s e e t h i n g

[Anonymous No.11452041]

>>11452018
Btw. "meme magic is real" is also true, in the above sense.

My joke in the first post was that Wittgenstein only has 2 books and a few articles, you can't go drastically wrong with just starting.
His early post war writeups (his first book) is "autistic" rejection of previous philosphy talk - he tries to wrap formal logic. Mind you, Frege published his Begriffschrift just 4 decades or so before that and it's 2 after Cantor. While Witty was close friends with Ramsey and worked with Russel, you must excuse any unnecessary complications in his "mathematical" writeup due to that stuff being raw and new. For understanding his math (better than he did), I recommend the mathematical logic text in pic related first. The conclusions Wittgenstein draws is another story. And for one reason or another, he arguably changed his mind later anyway and then comes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

[Anonymous No.11452049]

>>11452041
wrap formal logic over natural language and rational deduction*
is what I wanted to say

[Anonymous No.11452090]

>>11451990
>This kind of thing is unfortunately rampant in philosophy departments, as opposed to science departments where you can't fake competence or intellect.
I think that's overstating it. The consensus, determining what's relevant research, drives status and many can't (and coulnd't leave) the box they've worked themselves in.
There may be highly acclaimed researchers in quantum optics who happened to be lucky having choosen a field that became relevant and their true efforts and expertise (in conceptualizing and doing experiments, understanding their theoretical framework, as well as how to manage colleagues and students and selling the ideas), making them popular, in truth, doesn't reflect on them as the geniuses they are seen as in the end.

I rather listen to the incoherent ideas of a Deluze scholar, who kind of makes things up (in the way the post-modernists arguably also did) but be inspired by their lines of thought, than listen to the quantum mechanics prof who happens to sell things well ("quantum mechanics is mysterious"), despite the field being on a wrong thread for decades.
I rather read a book that eventually makes me change job than reading up about the worker bee statistical work of some chemist or medical academic. --- The "philosophy is a waste of time" guys, to paraphrase Zizek (for better or worse), swim in ideology without realizing it. That extending peoples life span or progressing technology something isn't inherently good doesn't cross their mind.
I think questioning the box is valuable, even if in the end you may find the most naive views were right all along.

[Anonymous No.11452140]

This is such a misleading image, ancient philosophers have almost nothing to do with philosophy todat

[Anonymous No.11452150]

>>11451849
it belongs on /lit/ because it is essentially just fiction

[Anonymous No.11452388]

>>11451849
/his/

[Anonymous No.11452439]

>>11451835
>>11451856
Pretty much these
I cannot, for love of me, understand how anyone can actually differ philosophy from sciece.

How on Earth can you possibly understand, let alone explain, that Time and Space are the exact same thing without going into a philosophical discussion?
We are nothing more than a bunch of cells that somehow learned how not to live on its own and now works for a cluster of completely depended cells who decides what happens through chemicals that it encounters here and there and sends signals via electricity
How can you possibly fathom the sheer size of the universe without going into philosophical examples? Heck, how the fuck can you even comprehend how the quantumn world, along with its bullshits, without latching on philosophical ideologies just to give it a little sense?

Idiots who think that philosophy are useless are useless themselves.

If I have the power, I would make it illegal to have a political leader who knows nothing about philosophy and history. Those 2 fields are necessary if you wish to lead people to the right path

[Anonymous No.11453811]

bump

[Anonymous No.11453827]

>>11451835
Notice how most of them are german.

[Anonymous No.11453837]

>>11453827
Germany vs USA, huh

[Anonymous No.11453842]

>>11451856
>t. brain/lit/

[Anonymous No.11453845]

>>11453842
/lit/ has higher IQ than /sci/ though

[Anonymous No.11453850]

>>11453845
Cope

[Anonymous No.11453851]

>>11453850
?

[Anonymous No.11453852]

>>11452439
>I cannot, for love of me, understand how anyone can actually differ philosophy from sciece.
It’s pretty easy, you just have to study actual science

[Anonymous No.11453853]

>>11453851
>he doesn’t know
lmao cope

[Anonymous No.11453854]

>>11453852
What does Einstein say?

[Anonymous No.11453858]

>>11453851
this is such good bait

[Anonymous No.11453862]

>>11453858
I actually browse both boards and /lit/ has an actual NASA scientist there who claims that he is there because he is insecure about the fact that his wife, who works as a librarian, knows so much more than him.

He wanted to beat her for once so he became a regular at /lit/

Take that as you will

[Anonymous No.11453865]

>>11453854
Who cares? If he couldn’t distinguish between the two (I'm sure he could) then he was as much of a tard as (you)

[Anonymous No.11453868]

>>11453865
I'm choosing Einsteins words over yours. Thanks :^)

[Anonymous No.11453886]

>>11453868
>Einsteins words
but you don’t even know what they are, because you’re illiterate

[Anonymous No.11453889]

>>11453886
k

[Anonymous No.11453894]

>>11453889
Seething

[Anonymous No.11453908]

You can’t make sense out of the very practice of science without a serious philosophical framework underneath.

[Anonymous No.11455329]

>>11453908
You can’t make sense out of the very practice of science with a serious philosophical framework underneath.

[Anonymous No.11455490]

>>11455329
Considering that Plato, Euclid, and Aristotle are also philosophers....

[Anonymous No.11455577]

>>11451856
Basado

[Anonymous No.11457016]

>those Dawkins quotes
Might not be very high IQ material, but absolutely, undeniably redpilled with shades of greenpill.

[Anonymous No.11457023]

They should teach philosophy in public schools. Particularly critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.11457036]

>>11451835
This is the science board, not the philosophy board. Go away, and maybe use a time machine to go five hundred years into the where philosophy was anything more than a hobby.

[Anonymous No.11457038]

>>11453908
Yes you can lol

[Anonymous No.11457809]

Can we not just get along, guys?
By the end of the way, we are all striving for the common goal of making society better as a whole.
Science side has granted us many wonders in technology, medicine, agriculture, and many more
Philosophy side was the reason why the Church and the State are separated, democracy ruled over the world, nobles lost most of their power, huge disdain for ideas of War and social classes are enjoying much better rights. The Diet of Worms, 1984, Anne Frank's Diary, and the Bible itself.
Precious stepping stones that made us better people as a whole.

I enjoy both boards and I believe I acts of arrogance is a defense of ignorance. Staying on one board leads to stagnancy and tunnel vision.

[Anonymous No.11458378]

>>11457809
This may interest you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifunctional_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.11458608]

>>11451936
Think of it as someone using a computer. Most often than not, they don't know what the computer is doing, but it does it purpose, it works, and when you finish using it you don't really think much of it unless you have some sort of autism. The same with magic