Why philsophers should every good /sci/entists read?

[Anonymous No.11982657]

[Anonymous No.11982659]

>>11982657
fuck that should say which

[Anonymous No.11982687]

>anxiety is cancelled

[Anonymous No.11982690]

>>11982657
Crop out everyone on the right

[Anonymous No.11982697]

>>11982690
the point is their juxtaposition

[Anonymous No.11983082]

Wow, you picked great physicists on the left, why not on the right? Two on the right aren’t even physicists. Frank wilczek, probably haven’t heard of him so look him up. He’s a great modern day physicist

[Anonymous No.11983109]

>>11982657
plato, aristotle, kant and hegel

[Anonymous No.11983113]

Aristotle, Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, Spengler.

[Anonymous No.11983159]

>>11982697
TV scientist don’t compare to actual real scientist nothing to compare here.

[Anonymous No.11983179]

>>11982657

Philosophy
>I have no idea about [insert thing], but surely someone will take me seriously as long as I write enough pages and use big enough words, .

[Anonymous No.11983196]

>>11983179
absolute brainlet take

[Anonymous No.11983199]

>>11983196
It’s the midwit take pretty sure. Brainlets think philosophy is deep.

[Anonymous No.11983208]

>>11983196
>>11983199

Oh okay. Well then non-brainlets, explain to me the relevance of "just sitting on your ass and thinking logically" in a quantum world where nothing makes sense to your primal brain on a fundamental level.

I don't care what you think or how convincing your arguments sound. Did you do experiments in the real world to come to your conclusions.

No? Well, then your opinion is garbage.

[Anonymous No.11983209]

>>11983208
t midwit

[Anonymous No.11983213]

>>11983208
You don’t know what philosophy is retard.

[Anonymous No.11983223]

>>11983213
Whatever it is, it surely isn't experimental. And if isn't experimental, it's infested with opinions.

If you would actually test those opinions in the real world, it would be science, wouldn't it? But you don't as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11983236]

>>11983223
What do you think philosophy is. Let’s look at one branch of philosophy ethics why do I need to account for quantum woowoo when talking about ethics?

[Anonymous No.11983242]

>>11983236

what exactly is ethics?

How humans should behave? How is that not simply an opinion?

Unless you are talking about some maybe innate ethics that even babies have - but then you should do developmental psychology and genetics to search for that.

[Anonymous No.11983248]

>>11983242
By using history to prove what consequences certain behaviours have. If only philosophers were allowed to experiment with humans instead of mice colonies

[Anonymous No.11983251]

>>11983248

So, you want to be a historian?

That's the point. There is nothing philosophy can do, that isn't done better by some other academic branch.

[Anonymous No.11983260]

>>11983251
Dude you and your take on philosophy sucks major dick. Please take a break and reflect. Listen to what the other anons said.

[Anonymous No.11983263]

>>11983208
>>11983223
Philosophy is literally about how to think logically.
Ethics, scientific method, constitution, chain of command, political heirarchy

All the result of philosophy

[Anonymous No.11983272]

Aristotle or people who used his teaches are the only right answers.

[Anonymous No.11983275]

>>11983260

>Please don't attack my religion.

[Anonymous No.11983279]

>>11982657
Homer
Hesiod
Aeschylus
Sophocles
Euripides
Aristophanes
Pindar
Sappho

Thales
Anaximander
Pythagoras
Heraclitus
Xenophanes
Parmenides
Zeno of Elea
Empedocles
Socrates
Antisthenes
Xenophon
Plato
Aristotle
Zeno of Citium and other Greek Stoics
(and the following thinkers purely for the development of philosophical knowledge:)
Pyhrro
Epicurus

Anabasis of Alexander
The New Testament(with a reading of the Old Testament)
St. Augustine

And that should guide one with direction in life, as well as there being no firmer basis for philosophy and poetry than the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11983281]

>>11983251
Does Quantum Mechanics apply to yourself? How do you distinguish you from the rest of the universe? You can't answer a lot of questions when you insert yourself in a problem, since experimenting on yourself is not a reliable source.

Do you exist? How you define yourself?

Also, foundations of QM is all about philosophy, see the debate between onthological vs epistemic points of view and the Wigner's friend paradox conundrum that ravaged the literature last year.

You dont know shit, kiddo, you just have opinions like a teenage girl wanting to impress a stud

[Anonymous No.11983283]

>>11983279
And I almost forgot Demosthenes.

[Anonymous No.11983287]

>>11983279

How to be a religious fanatic if you are to edgy to follow a major religion.

[Anonymous No.11983309]

>>11983281
Blah blah blah.

Just because there are things not answered by science [yet], doesn't mean that it's a good method to just think about them.

But feel free delude yourself into believing that you are actually finding something by just thinking about it. All you are doing is elaborating the biases you already have into more wordy forms.

Study psychology. Psychology at least tries to do experiments to see if it is right or wrong. And as flawed as psychology as a science is, it's still miles above
>dude, let me just think about this and write 400 pages of drivel

[Anonymous No.11983314]

>>11983287
>"religious fanatic"
And I quote: "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
>For if we will think of it, no Time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a man great enough, a man wise and good enough: wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valor to lead it on the right road thither; these are the salvation of any Time. But I liken common languid Times, with their unbelief, distress, perplexity, with their languid doubting characters and embarrassed circumstances, impotently crumbling down into ever worse distress towards final ruin;—all this I liken to dry dead fuel, waiting for the lightning out of Heaven that shall kindle it. The great man, with his free force direct out of God's own hand, is the lightning. His word is the wise healing word which all can believe in. All blazes round him now, when he has once struck on it, into fire like his own. The dry mouldering sticks are thought to have called him forth. They did want him greatly; but as to calling him forth—! Those are critics of small vision, I think, who cry: "See, is it not the sticks that made the fire?" No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men. There is no sadder symptom of a generation than such general blindness to the spiritual lightning, with faith only in the heap of barren dead fuel. It is the last consummation of unbelief. In all epochs of the world's history, we shall find the Great Man to have been the indispensable savior of his epoch;—the lightning, without which the fuel never would have burnt. The History of the World, I said already, was the Biography of Great Men.

There's nothing wrong with being a fanatic, in the right sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.11983316]

>>11982657
It was a lot easier for white people to idealize Oriental mysticism as something deep and interesting before a bunch of literal 3rd-world voodoo worshipers finally moved in next door

[Anonymous No.11983322]

>>11983316
>Hinduism's texts' intellectual content is limited by its racially different worshippers

[Anonymous No.11983323]

>>11983316
WHY YES, I DO BELIEVE THE BUDDHA'S GREATEST MIRACLE WAS CALMING A DRUNKEN ELEPHANT. HOW COULD YOU TELL?

[Anonymous No.11983326]

>>11983309
The worst blind is the one that refuses to see. Good luck being so infatuated with your own opinions that you can't grasp that the logical foundation of science is a result of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11983329]

>>11983326
>the logical foundation of science is a result of philosophy
Philosophy that you can read in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Literally no "logical foundation" of any consequence to science or engineering has been developed since then lol

[Anonymous No.11983343]

>>11983314
Philosophy in a nutshell.

Couldn't have demonstrated it better myself.
>Muh words

[Anonymous No.11983386]

>>11982657
Right side is literally:
>Reddit Atheist memeguy
>Literally who?
>B.S. in mech eng, children's educator at best propagandist at worst
>Black science guy, see pic related

All of them are TV personalities, pop sci is cancer and should not be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.11983404]

>>11983343
Yes you retard, those words are more meaningful and important than numbers.

[Anonymous No.11983462]

>>11983404
Honest question. What difference is there between the "great men" you worship so much and all the muslim scholars who do nothing but write about the fine implications of the Islam?

Read this
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-books-on-Islamic-philosophy

Sounds like someone who spent his life studying bullshit? Well, that's you - just with another geographic location.

[Anonymous No.11983485]

>>11982657
neven sesardic

[Anonymous No.11983488]

>>11982657
All you need is schopenhaur for the correct blackpilled perspective, then marcus aurelius to cope with that understanding of reality

[Anonymous No.11983490]

>>11983462
It is clear you never even read those books.

[Anonymous No.11983491]

>>11983462
>see that guy over there he did the same thing
>which one is more [true] is irrelevant
Lol, this is why you retards need religion instead of philosophy

[Anonymous No.11983492]

>>11983309
Einstein say philosophy good therefore it's good

[Anonymous No.11983541]

>>11983223
Prove empiricly that empiricism is the superior way of gaining knowledge, low IQ stemcel.

[Anonymous No.11983551]

>>11983287
Shouldn't you be preparing for high school instead of posting your brainlet ideas here?

[Anonymous No.11983570]

>>11983199

[Anonymous No.11983585]

>>11983329
Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon, Comte, Newton, Einstein were all concerned with the axioms accepted by science in either creating or changing. You are simply accepting the already given axioms, which is okay but if you want to solve something revolutionary, or ever have to create a scientific method yourself, you'll have to delve into philosophy like everyone has to.

[Anonymous No.11983647]

>>11983159
that's exactly the point the pic is trying to make

[Anonymous No.11983650]

>>11983223
math isn't experimental
is it infested with opinions?
sociology is experimental
is it infested with opinions?

[Anonymous No.11983664]

>>11983585
I agree with this pic

[Anonymous No.11983691]

>>11982657
Take the Witten pill. When an annoying litbro asks you about your favourite philosopher, just go "Maxwell, lol", that ought to shut them up

[Anonymous No.11983733]

>>11983570
"Morality is totally relative, so we should just do whatever makes everyone most happy"
Then if there is something that we can do that can make everyone most happy, that in itself is a moral truth, not relative at all.
I mean, if it's something that after countless years of experience our societies consider it to be the best for the well-being of all people, it is indeed
the factual and absolute truth that humans have been seeking. Not relative at all imo

[Anonymous No.11983742]

>>11983208
So you are proposing that we stop thinking and live randomly, I'm guessing?

[Anonymous No.11983748]

why are philosophyanons so stuck up

[Anonymous No.11983750]

>>11983251
Philosophy as an academic field is indeed bullcrap. But philosophy != academical philosophy

[Anonymous No.11983860]

>>11983462
>Using Quora
Finally, a perfect subject for my Autism research

[Anonymous No.11984132]

>>11983650
Math is not strictly experimental, but it can be verified by looking at the real world. If you do some esoteric 11 dimensions math that has no connection to the real world, then it's dangerously close to bullshit as well.

Sociology is mostly not experimental. What they do is observe already existing groups. For a true experiment they would need to assign people randomly to groups - which obviously won't work.
>you are assigned to be a hippie (or Nazi) for the next 5 years. We will observe the results afterwards.

[Anonymous No.11984267]

>>11983570
How the fuck does Existential Comics make such good and enjoyable comics yet has absolute shit takes on Twitter?

[Anonymous No.11984292]

>>11984132
Logic (math) doesn’t care about experiments or real world confirmation you fucking brainlet. Just cause you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not verifiably and objectively true

[Anonymous No.11984407]

>>11982657
Most important philosophers to read:

Plato
Heraclitus
Aristotle
Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius
Augustine
Buddha
Meister Eckhart
Shankara
Nagarjuna
Dogen
Lao-Tzu
Hegel
Kant
Descartes
Spinoza
Newton
Hume
Locke
Rousseau
Schopenhauer
Schelling
Schiller
Holderlin
Fichte
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Lotze
Trendelenberg
Cohen
Bradley
McTaggart
Wittgenstein
Dilthey
Emerson
Heidegger
Arendt
Husserl
Leibniz
Godel
Brentano
Bolzano
Cantor

[Anonymous No.11984490]

>>11984132
>If you do some esoteric 11 dimensions math that has no connection to the real world, then it's dangerously close to bullshit as well
lmao you're the kind of pleb who would have dismissed complex numbers as a bullshit field before it became important for every single field of physics

[Anonymous No.11984708]

>>11982657
I've read some Wittgenstein, would highly recommend it, changed how I view reality as a concept.

[Anonymous No.11984787]

>>11984292
>Logic (math) doesn’t care about experiments or real world confirmation

Not true. You need to have a foundations like ZFC, MLTT or whatever system pleases you, and it needs to be consistent with reality. One consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that [math]\Pi_0^1[/math] formulae are enough to capture random shit, and can be thought as empirical experiments for your theory.

[Anonymous No.11985033]

>>11984787
>One consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that Π10Π01 formulae are enough to capture random shit

Please explain like i'm 5.

[Anonymous No.11985117]

>>11983570
There is literally nothing gayer than inserting your favorite cultural icons to speak for you in a comic. Fanboyism is a disease.

[Anonymous No.11985126]

>>11984787
>One consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that [math]\Pi^1_0[/math] formulae are enough to capture random shit, and can be thought as empirical experiments for your theory.
Aha, someone who's learned just enough to bullshit plausibly. It's [math]\Pi^0_1[/math] btw.

[Anonymous No.11985301]

>>11983733
>Then if there is something that we can do that can make everyone most happy, that in itself is a moral truth, not relative at all.
Pretty sure that's the point.

[Anonymous No.11985323]

>>11983208
Holy shit, this one is room temperature IQ. In Celsius.

[Anonymous No.11985356]

>>11983279
Dante Alighieri too.

[Anonymous No.11985459]

>>11982657
I'm not sure there's really any philosophers that scientist in particular should read. Thomas Kuhn I guess.
Aside from that the same rec's as anyone else who wants to read philosophy
Personally I think anything post-linguistic turn is most interesting without being irrelevant. ie. Wittgenstein, and anything from the field of meta-ethics

[Anonymous No.11985757]

>>11982657
I think that you mean is when and the answer is Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and most importantly, Neitzsche.

[Anonymous No.11985971]

>>11983242
>How is that not simply an opinion?
That's exactly what ethics try to found out

[Anonymous No.11985990]

>>11982657
/sci/ related, just Popper and Wittgenstein.
Some others are nice to read

[Anonymous No.11986277]

>>11982657
Start on the ancient greece one
then just go through the history of philosophy as whole untill you reach 2020

[Anonymous No.11986475]

>>11984407
absolute cringe list, not becuase they all suck, but because reading that much will certainly make you stupid af

[Anonymous No.11986536]

>>11983263
So is political correctness.

[Anonymous No.11986659]

>>11986277
>then just go through the history of philosophy as whole untill you reach 2020
It's going to take you at least a few years to reach 2020 which by then will probably be 2025

[Anonymous No.11986715]

>>11985323
Convincing argument.