/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15200420]

This midwit really thought that he was into something with "Cogito, ergo sum" lol

[Anonymous No.15200488]

>>15200420
He thought it, and therefore he was.

[Anonymous No.15200504]

Cartesian dualism remains unrefuted.

[Anonymous No.15200514]

>>15200504
You’re right, but there are certainly other ways of phrasing the cogito without lapsing into the internalist nightmare that post-Cartesian philosophy has been trying to wake from.

>there is cognitive activity occurring
Something like that I guess

[Anonymous No.15200722]

>>15200488
:D

[Anonymous No.15200913]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.15200955]

>>15200420
The funny thing is that he followed it up with "Well, obviously God exists too, therefore..."

[Anonymous No.15201879]

>>15200504
>Cartesian dualism remains unrefuted.
remains unrefuted in your mind kiddo, the cogito ergo sum was refuted by kant in his critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.15201886]

>>15201879
Kant was an insufferable midwit pseud. He copied from Descartes and Plato without understanding them properly. He also sucked at math. And his categorical imperative is literally onions: "You ought to act like this because ... uhm you just ought to, okay?" I don't get why Kant was memed into this false image of allegedly being deep or intellectual. He was an average armchair cuck and produced nothing of intellectual value.

[Anonymous No.15201890]

>>15201886
>Kant was an insufferable midwit pseud.
yeah, you're right almost in everything about kant, but at least he was right criticizing descartes's work

[Anonymous No.15202191]

When you read philosophy it's all retard ideas like in >>15200420 and >>15201886 backed up by hundreds of pages of nonsense that you have to pretend are works of extremely hard to understand genius. I've read philosophy books by literal whos that deserve to be much more recognized than these celebrity philosophers everyone reads in school. They're just celebrities because they were nobles and their dads wanted them to be famous. Philosophy is a joke.

[Anonymous No.15202192]

>>15200420
he was, in fact it may be the only thing he got right

[Anonymous No.15202195]

>>15200504
has nothing to do with the quote in OP

[Anonymous No.15203817]

>>15200420
Good bait.

[Anonymous No.15204579]

>>15202191
What would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.15205285]

>>15202191
>philosophy it's all retard ideas
>by hundreds of pages of nonsense
>I've read philosophy books
>Philosophy is a joke.
look at yourself bro, your logic is: "shit, i can't understand a bit of pages, damn this philosophers are a joke"

[Anonymous No.15206661]

>>15200504
lolno
Cartesian dualism allows trannies to be valid

[Anonymous No.15206679]

>>15200504
It doesn't have to be a substance dualis though. The matter based objects appearing in mind are ALSO mental objects, so idealism works just fine with substance monism and the observed data. This takes care of the mind body interaction problem too. Mind acting on 'matter' then becomes just mind effecting mental objects. There are still 'me AND not me' objects, but they are all MENTAL objects. So no substance dualism. And no having to postulate this unverifiable substance called mind/observer independent matter.

[Anonymous No.15206687]

>>15202191
Nietzsche became famous because his sister wanted him to become famous. She collected and marketed his works, then moved to an aryan colony in Paraguay where her husband died of hunger.

[Anonymous No.15206691]

>>15205285
Yes

[Anonymous No.15206779]

>>15206687
>Nietzsche became famous because his sister wanted him to become famous. She collected and marketed his work
Depends on what you mean by famous. Even during his lifetime, his philosophical concepts were being taught in universites, though his books weren't new york times bestsellers™. If after his death his sister managed to promote his works, and made it more famous, it has no relation to his integrity of his work.

[Anonymous No.15206832]

>>15205285
It's not nonsense on a superficial level. The author usually clearly follows a line of reasoning, and one idea leads to the next. But many books are nonsense on a "meta" level: why are they even talking about these things?
The problem I'm talking about here is the phenomenon that was, in large part, caused by Cartesian rationalism: the so-called analytic philosophers, who like to think that they are mathematicians. They will spend an entire book making up abstract concepts, and then building "theorems" out of these concepts. You keep reading dozens of pages of an autist building up a useless network of ideas (and sometimes inserting a ridiculous a priori axiom because "it is intuitive"), all for the payoff of the Great Idea that he is surely going to talk about at any moment.

In contrast, a good philosopher is someone who has such an abundance of knowledge, that you can tell that he is struggling to compress it in a few hundred pages. In every page, he is teaching you something new. The ancient philosophers always shared a lot of wisdom in every page (even though a lot of it is now known to be wrong).

[Anonymous No.15206837]

>>15204579
Many PhDs eventually decide do make a slightly dumbed down book about their field, so that people outside of it can read it. Usually not many people read them, but they are often very good. So that is a good place to look for a book. There are two that I really liked (I wont spoil them):

>Every Thing Must Go
This is a rare book, that actually tries to build a metaphysics based on modern science, and not on intuitions and toy models of Newtonian mechanics. The author complains about "analytic metaphysicians", and it is the EXACT same complaint I have made earlier.

>Healing Fiction
This is actually a psychoanalysis book, but it is based on Jung's ideas, which are almost philosophical in my opinion. This is the one that most striked me because the author had so much to say, I don't even remember most of what I read. It's also kind of a self-improvement book, so it is really worth reading.