[ 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: 1.00 MB, 1716x1710, 1466359067568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15532057 No.15532057 [Reply] [Original]

Is philosophy dead?

>> No.15532117

The only thing that philosophy is good for is to prove that philosophy is a bunch of bullshit.
That's all philosophers have done since the days of Xenophanes and Parmenides.
Everything else is just philosophers masking their unprovable beliefs and subjective opinions as "philosophical statements".

>> No.15532125

>>15532057
No just hibernating. The vibrations are increasing and the mass awakening is already upon us, The veil is thinning

>> No.15532133

>>15532117
How much philosophy have you read anon? Surely it must be a lot, otherwise that's a very arrogant statement.

>> No.15532150

>>15532133
About 1/3 of my bookshelf is dedicated to philosophy (so roughly 20 books or so). I spent several years dedicated to studying many of the great thinkers in Western philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc.), and also got a taste of various "Eastern" philosophical schools of thought.
Philosophy is of value as far as the rules of logic and logical inference go, but no further than that.
It's just as easy to claim that there is an origin to the universe and that everything follows a set path as it is to claim that the universe has no origin and that nothing in nature will necessarily follow any rules.
Philosophers tend to be at their strongest whenever it comes to exposing potential logical gaps in an argument, but are surprisingly weak even at proving what ought to be quite obvious, mainly because they cannot assume anything as indubitably true. If the senses cannot be trusted, then anything "seen" or "felt" can only be as believably true as anything imagined can.

>> No.15532157

Philosophy was never alive. It never contributed any intellectual insights. It never solved any problem. It never answered any question.

>> No.15532158

>>15532133
>How many astrology books did you read? Surely you have a PhD in astrology or else you're not entitled to call astrology a pseudoscience.

>> No.15532208

>navel gazing thread

>> No.15532621

isnt there an image that "refutes" this image by posting quotes from great scientists who were naturalists\materialists?

>> No.15533373

>>15532621
Being against philosophy doesn't mean you're a naturalist or materialist; most philosophers are those things. It just means you're retarded.

>> No.15533383

>>15533373
Being materialist is retarded. Being against philosophy is an indicator of high IQ. There's an upper IQ limit for philosophy. At an IQ above 130 philosophy becomes too trivial and cringe.

>> No.15533394

>>15532057
>Take a philosophical stance... against philosophy
Sounds like the real issue is you're being served lower IQ people to follow as scientists now.

>> No.15533849
File: 77 KB, 603x1024, 1682904756097005m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15533849

I don't know about you nerds but, for me, it created a solid foundation for understanding how to 'think'. Sometimes you're just in serious situations with imperfect or outright incorrect information and it helps discern right from wrong especially when dealing with people. It's also humbling in a way to discover that every novel idea you've unearthed independently was already discussed and more thoroughly deliberated thousands of years ago.