Philosophy: A worthless discipline populated by people who are too stupid to do real science, yet consider themselves intellectuals and/or want to project an image of superior intelligence to help them get laid.

File: 106 KB, 958x568, 1292125366362841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:43:26 2010 No.2204868 [Reply] [Original]

Philosophy: A worthless discipline populated by people who are too stupid to do real science, yet consider themselves intellectuals and/or want to project an image of superior intelligence to help them get laid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:50:26 2010 No.2204889 yeah, and?

>>	[☭]Superiority² !!BSFhHtcy9Zi Wed Dec 15 02:52:26 2010 No.2204895 >>2204868 I'm pretty sure at this time and date you could major in being a McDonalds manager and still get more sex/money than a Philosophy major...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:55:26 2010 No.2204906 Philosophy is one of those things where if you don't have the ability to think freely and rationally, you really should take a few courses in it before moving onto your actual major. But that's about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:56:26 2010 No.2204910 I agree with you and especially hate philosophy majors. Mind you, pure logic is pretty neat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:56:26 2010 No.2204912 Philosophy / Biochem major here. I'm slightly insulted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:57:26 2010 No.2204913 >>2204868 moar OPs pic

>>	Devil Reverse Wed Dec 15 02:57:26 2010 No.2204915 hey OP, don't complain too much. You still got to rub your big black dick in some chick's face. Unless, the girl represents you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 02:58:26 2010 No.2204918 File: 166 KB, 960x399, 1289879964839.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Not OP, but made this a little while ago.>>2204913

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:00:26 2010 No.2204926 >>2204918 that's what i meant >moar LIKE OPs pic

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:01:26 2010 No.2204932
File: 939 KB, 1200x900, i1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Science allows us to understand in greater detail and precision our reality, that is to say, it's reliable knowledge. Philosophy is concerned with how that knowledge effects the human understanding of the world.

Philosophy exists because Science can't explain or predict its own implications.

>>	Devil Reverse Wed Dec 15 03:02:26 2010 No.2204937 >>2204926 how disappointing. I had hoped you had called for further images of black men subjugating white women sexually.

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 03:03:26 2010 No.2204938 What I Studied: Human Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind What I Expected: Bullshit Propaganda What I Got: I AM GOD I AM GOD I AM GOD I AM GOD I AM GOD I AM GOD

>>	Panda5 !EshdTRey7E Wed Dec 15 03:04:26 2010 No.2204943 >>2204938 Yeah, a short trip on Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds (basically natural LSD) taught me that I am god.

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 03:05:26 2010 No.2204945 >>2204943 Each to their own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:06:26 2010 No.2204948 >>2204943 It's LSA to my recollection, and the seeds are good for nothing but making me puke

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:06:26 2010 No.2204950 >>2204912 Because you are a biochem major? Hell I would be too. >>2204895 I worked in one during highschool. She was a stripper on the side so half of that is probably true.

>>	Panda5 !EshdTRey7E Wed Dec 15 03:08:26 2010 No.2204955 >>2204948 Don't eat for at least 6 hours beforehand, drink some water, and don't think about your stomache. And yeah, it's LSA, but most people haven't heard of that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:10:26 2010 No.2204964 >>2204955 Have the pigs made these a controlled substance yet?

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:11:26 2010 No.2204967

>>2204932

Philosophy is merely disciplines not yet snatched up by science.

Which is why I despise the tendency of phil majors to HURR DURR DIFFERENT GOALS.

No, faggots, the goal is the pursuit of knowledge in both cases. We're just better at it, but don't worry. Soon enough we'll formalise metaphysics like we did logic, and you'll have nowhere left to live.

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 03:12:26 2010 No.2204970 File: 100 KB, 1000x500, e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I came. I cleansed the thread. I left.

>>	Panda5 !EshdTRey7E Wed Dec 15 03:12:26 2010 No.2204971 >>2204964 Not really. It could be considered a crime under the chemical analogs act, but they would have to witness you taking them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:14:26 2010 No.2204981 >>2204970 Got a bigger one. I require more wallpapers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:16:26 2010 No.2204989 >>2204967 Science provides information, not knowledge. It doesn't become knowledge until it's interpreted in a human context.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:18:26 2010 No.2204996
File: 14 KB, 293x283, 1243545713705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't get why this board is so obsessed with this mindset of "if you're not in the most intelligence-required field, you're a failure." Is it really so mind-blowing to understand that some people enjoy doing things because they have a passion for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:18:26 2010 No.2204997 >>2204989 >Implying the only reason you said that isn't butthurt over the fact that philology is getting surplanted by linguistcs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:19:26 2010 No.2205001 >>2204996 With intelligence comes elitism.

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 03:21:26 2010 No.2205004 File: 505 KB, 1200x1457, j.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2204981

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:21:26 2010 No.2205007 File: 17 KB, 405x289, facepalm7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2204989 So much pretentious bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:21:26 2010 No.2205008 >>2205001 with chicken come niggers

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:21:26 2010 No.2205009 File: 28 KB, 460x276, noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2204996 LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:21:26 2010 No.2205011 >>2205001 It's sad that this is what /sci/ actually believes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:22:26 2010 No.2205013 >>2205004 How exactly is that a larger version of the picture you posted that I referenced? And how would that make a good wallpaper?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:22:26 2010 No.2205015 >>2204996 4chan is the Mos Eisley of the internet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:24:26 2010 No.2205019 >>2205001 >With intelligence comes elitism on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:24:26 2010 No.2205021 >>2205001 With intelligence comes an urge to flee /sci/ and its ignorant elitist phonies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:25:26 2010 No.2205024 >>2205021 And go where? /b/?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:27:26 2010 No.2205028 >>2204868 >project an image of superior intelligence to help them get laid. that's a bad thing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:27:26 2010 No.2205030 philosophy and ''real science'' go hand in hand. I dont think though that philosophy is enough to study, it more of an addon when you are done majoring in a real science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:32:26 2010 No.2205040 >Art: A worthless discipline populated by people who are too stupid to do real science, yet consider themselves intellectuals and/or want to project an image of superior intelligence to help them get laid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:35:26 2010 No.2205043 > Mathematics : A worthless discipline populated by people who are too stupid to do real science, yet consider themselves intellectuals and/or want to project an image of superior intelligence to help them get laid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:35:26 2010 No.2205044 >>2205040 I honestly pity you. You aren't able to appreciate any type of art?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:36:26 2010 No.2205046 >>2205043 >implying mathematicians will have as much success in getting laid

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:37:26 2010 No.2205048 >>2205044 He's not capable of any kind of artistic intellectualism, that's all.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:38:26 2010 No.2205053

Here is the reason no one takes philosophy, anthropology, and psychology seriously

They have a liberal bias that takes priority over all their "science".

Any study that suggests that not all people are equal is immediately disregarded.

Second problem is that these fields don't do anything anymore. When they are not indoctrinating people, they are nothing more than glorified history classes circle jerking over a handful of philosophers.

Third problem is that philosophy doesn't help you understand the world or think more openly like the philosophy majors chant. An intelligent person will come to understand these concepts on their through their own life experiences.

These fields are pseudo science because they actively work to maintain a status quo instead of pursuing the truth about how the universe works.

The fact that these graduates are nothing more than professional students who can never get a job even remotely related to philosophy doesn't help their case either

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:40:26 2010 No.2205058

>>2205044

My point is you can take any discipline and make OP's claim. Intelligence manifests in many different ways. Just because certain people are analytically intelligent doesn't make them the most practically or even literally intelligent in all respects.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:40:26 2010 No.2205059 >>2205053 Reality has a well documented liberal bias. Conservapedia covers it in great detail.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:41:26 2010 No.2205062 >>2205058 >My point is you can take any discipline and make OP's claim. Many science, business, legal fields, etc. disprove this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:43:26 2010 No.2205069 >>2205059 What the fuck is a liberal bias.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:43:26 2010 No.2205070 >>2205059 >Conservipedia Here are a handful of shit tier of sources/citations that automatically discredit both a persons argument and their own credibility. -youtube -the onion -huffingtonpost -dailymail -conservipedia -Digg -

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:44:26 2010 No.2205072 >>2205062 Not if you're a science fag elitist like the OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:45:26 2010 No.2205076 >>2205070 You realize The Onion is satirical, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:46:26 2010 No.2205080 Conservapedia is a satire.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:46:26 2010 No.2205081 >>2205072 No, even an elitist science major disproves your claim. In fact, anybody in science (regardless of position and disposition) disproves it. You're just pulling off wishful thinking and anchoring effect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:47:26 2010 No.2205085 >>2205076 That just makes it an even worse source of information.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:47:26 2010 No.2205086 >>2205053 I'da thought Glenn Beck would be in bed at this hour.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:48:26 2010 No.2205087

>>2205053
>job related to philosophy

This is pretty much a contradiction. Besides, philosophy majors have better grad school admission rates than majors in any natural science, and make more money in business than business majors.

They can philosophize on their own time.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:49:26 2010 No.2205091

That is the idea that everyone is equal and that the only reason there are differences are environmental

Men and women are equally intelligent and physically capable.

All races are equal and there is no genetic component to intelligence.

All cultures are equal, even haitian and African culture where people practice voodoo, rape virgins to cure hiv, breed out of control, can't grasp the simple concept of not shitting where you eat, etc, etc

Homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Even though homosexuals are still regular people, they do have a sexual disorder that goes against natural human instincts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:50:26 2010 No.2205093 >>2205053 Philosophy is a personal knowladge, you cant do a job with philosophy dumbfuck.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:50:26 2010 No.2205094 >>2205076 You realize people (who are not trolling) actually use it as a source on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:51:26 2010 No.2205099 >>2205091 huh ? what thread did you come from ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:55:26 2010 No.2205111 >>2205053 >>2205091 Time to take your pills stormfag, you're completely offtopic here. Please have the decency to wait for the next race thread before shitting up /sci/ some more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:55:26 2010 No.2205112 >>2205086 Anally sore philosophy majors detected. >>2205087 >Citation needed

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 03:59:26 2010 No.2205125

there's nothing wrong with philosophy. the problem is the education. if you had dedication you could cover more on your own with greater rigor than you would if you passively followed the class guidelines. less bias too.

also you might be able to find a job if you spend your school time doing something else. you can rage at me about how you go to school for an education, not a job, but fuck that. your education is in the library, your credential comes from the classroom.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:08:26 2010 No.2205135

>>2205125

Whenever someone asks if X is a good major and I ask what the cost of school is and what the career you will be doing will make

The "college is for expanding your mind" dipshit crowd come in and jump all over me.

College should be treated as a trade school for higher level jobs because if you don't major in something useless you will be learning things that will be needed for your future career(s).

If you want knowledge library and internet is free and you don't have to take out fifty thousand dollars from sally mae to go there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:17:26 2010 No.2205156 >>2205111 >stormfags >on a site like 4chan wolololol, he is just a random /new/ troll. >>2205135 >paying for collage murrika fuck yeah

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:17:56 2010 No.2205161 >>2205144 new thread here this time on autodidacticism

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:19:26 2010 No.2205168 >>2204868 SFW board, please delete your thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:28:26 2010 No.2205199 >>2205168 if you're working the freaking graveyard and your boss is up your ass about some tits, get a new job because the one you have isn;t worth the rem cycles

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:31:26 2010 No.2205207 >>2205168 >4chan >sfw Do people really go on 4chan while at work? I didn't think it was possible to be this stupid >>2205161 Mods delete any and all autodidact threads on sight for some reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 04:34:26 2010 No.2205215 >>2205053 THIS

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:31:26 2010 No.2205305 MOAR SCIENCE RELATED PR0NZ PLEASE

lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 05:35:26 2010 No.2205313

Without the correct knowledge of our past, we become soulless, unaware drifters who are only partly human.

"I think therefore I am" - Is a true statement, however, when we specifically look at the words "I am", they seem clouded, what exactly are 'we'? We think therefore we are, what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:41:26 2010 No.2205326 >>2205207 Stupid? Or AWESOME!!! >barneypic.jpg stifch together stitch together gelatinous dessert.

>>	SturmTroll !GnYU8vo7lA Wed Dec 15 05:42:26 2010 No.2205328 All of Humanities is this OP. Including Psychology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:45:26 2010 No.2205336 >>2205207 what you mean you don't get paid $20/hr to surf 4chan for six hours a day? oh yea I'm the stupid one

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:50:26 2010 No.2205346 Isn't that Sasha Grey?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:50:26 2010 No.2205349 >>2205346 No, I'm pretty sure it's Misa Campo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:51:26 2010 No.2205350 >>2205336 Wait till human resources calls you into the office and asks you why you have been looking at so many horse cocks and underage girls.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:55:26 2010 No.2205359

I enjoy philosophy (I'm taking some courses when my major isn't on the way), but to make a career out of it is just silly. In my uni, they take 12 philosophy students (hoping to major) in. Every year. I'm guessing most of them end up working in a supermarket or something, and only the very few charismatic ones get to do something else.

Those people who think they can work in philosophy are just chasing their seriously unrealistic dreams. Sure, I'd like to spend the rest of my life just philosophing. And yet I chose a major that will get me employed with 90% certainty. I'll also get paid well.

This makes me wonder: how can philosophers understand anything in their own field when they don't understand our societi at all?

tl;dr so sad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 05:57:26 2010 No.2205363 this board is full of douchebags, myself included

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:05:26 2010 No.2205377

>>2205359

You must go to a small university because there were almost a thousand people at my graduation and over 700 of them were between art, philosophy, psychology, and business

They graduate the actual science majors first. The first twenty rows were between all the science majors and the rest of the stadium was for the liberal arts graduates.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:06:26 2010 No.2205378 File: 58 KB, 500x375, 1288974002603.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WTF you bitches bitch about? I am a philosophy major and I got the highest paying job ever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:11:26 2010 No.2205396 >>2205350 >implying Gary in HR isn't on the list of people I forward the best horsecocks and lolis to

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:17:26 2010 No.2205423

>>2205377
Yes, University of Turku (in Finland doh).

In here, we choose a master's degree (which can be philosophy) and some other crap (like history) on the side. I'm a law student, but I have philosophy and bussiness on the side.

The dear idiots who basically study nothing but philosophy (because let's face it, even if you study a little something on the side, you're still not going to get hired since there are better applicants) are most likely either going to end up teaching philosophy or work in a supermarket. Some lucky/charismatic individuals might end up doing what they all wanted to do when entering university.

Oh well, this country is over-educated anyway so what's a couple hundred philosophers to add..

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:19:26 2010 No.2205427 >>2205207 4chan is a company-endorsed site here. The boss is here, the employees are here. Some of our boyfriends/wives are here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:29:26 2010 No.2205450 i enjoy philosophy, but i would rather stick with my biochemistry degree, and yes philosophy is full of faggots like that

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:32:26 2010 No.2205454 >>2204868 story behind OP's pic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:33:26 2010 No.2205456 >>2205427 the fuck is your job? hooker imports?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:37:26 2010 No.2205466 When a philosophy bitch challenges an astrophysicist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:39:26 2010 No.2205471 >>2205466 FLAWLESS VICTORY

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:42:26 2010 No.2205476 >>2205456 brain rape

FOR SANITY!!!! Wed Dec 15 06:53:26 2010 No.2205488

Well, I found OP's pict quite rolfmaoable...
for some background, check out
http://www.vman.com/articles/sasha-fierce/
Grey has also cultivated a reputation as an intellectual porn star, citing Nietzsche, Baudrillard, and Situationism as influences and speaking at colleges like Brandeis and UCLA.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:55:26 2010 No.2205492 >>2205456 Just your ordinary, run-off-the-mill IT-consultancy. The kind of stuff we see on some client's (work-)computers, lurking on /b/ is almost an official requirement for working face-to-face with them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 06:55:26 2010 No.2205493 >>2205488 Grey can't be too smart if she has herpes and has caught gonorrhea twice

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 07:01:26 2010 No.2205505 >>2205493 Seeing how Nietzsche died of Syphilis, I think she's going to prove a respectable philosopher.

>>	anonymouse Wed Dec 15 07:09:26 2010 No.2205530 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iegJUZS8k4

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 07:25:26 2010 No.2205565 >>2205466 Thanks for posting

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 07:41:26 2010 No.2205592

Why are you fucktards even trying to group philosophy with science?

Half of a philosophy course will be stuff like ethics and aesthetics. It's got nothing to do with science at all. Stuff that does have a crossover like logic or metaphysics is often looking at it from a different angle to science. An angle that is of no use to science.

This is why it is an ART, it's not even a social science.

It's going to be great when half of you science degrees realise nobody in reality gives a shit which degree you have and outside of research in that specific field a biochemistry degrees means as much as a philosophy degree.

Signed,

A butthurt philosophy student

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 07:47:26 2010 No.2205604 File: 46 KB, 800x533, hipster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2205592 >This is why it is an ART I mad

lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 08:07:26 2010 No.2205639

No-one on /sci/ can boast about science being above philosophy, because I not only prove the words in holy books correct, I also prove all the scientific laws no so. Each and every thread I make, or contribute to, I end up winning the debate at hand. I've proved on many occasions that timecube is correct, I've proved on many occasions that the bible is metaphorical and everything written inside is based on elements/beings from actuality, I've also proved on many occasions that we are God -- not to mention uncovering many secrets that, if the motto of /sci/ wasn't "the truth doesn't matter", would change all the theories discussed here.

You cannot forget your past, without it you're dumb and delusional. An example being, "we came from a giant hamburger," (we didn't but it's a good example), the government tell you that you came from 'star stuff', and now your whole outlook on life is based around this principle. Same goes with 'chemicals' and 'colours', if you take the evaluative definition of beings rather than the descriptive, then you're seeing existence in a completely different light as oppose to the other -- if you take both, then you're seeing what's true.

Philosophy and Science, they should be taught together -- the only reason they do not teach this is everything, that is living, seems to be defined as invaluable resource, it would also prove money is the root of all evil and America is the devil country, amongst other things.

In short, do philosophy in your own time, as a hobby, and see life for what it truly is.

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 08:19:26 2010 No.2205662 File: 18 KB, 250x325, 19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] u so mad right now

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:21:26 2010 No.2205667

Natural Philosophy is dead because of science.
All other fields of philosophy are taken up by other social sciences. Then they are left with linguistics and metaphysics, in which case you should just study linguistics or religion.
No room for poor philosophers. Anything they want to specialise in is already taken by more thorough fields. And is something anyone can learn about extremely easily in their spare time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:21:26 2010 No.2205668 >>2205639 or you're just an attention seeking aspie

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 08:22:26 2010 No.2205672 File: 81 KB, 447x364, 14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2205668

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:34:26 2010 No.2205698

>>2205667
> Natural Philosophy is dead because of science.

Natural Philosophy IS science. It is what grew into all of the scientific fields that we have today.

> Then they are left with linguistics and metaphysics, in which case you should just study linguistics or religion.
No room for poor philosophers. Anything they want to specialise in is already taken by more thorough fields.

> metaphysics
> religion
> more thorough field

Considering that religion carries a whole lot more excess baggage with it, philosophy is still the place to go for metaphysics.

And you also entirely left out ethics.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 08:35:26 2010 No.2205703 >>2205672 Confirmed for faggot Good work >>2204868

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:35:26 2010 No.2205705 >>2205698 >Natural Philosophy is science Oh god what, what are the major theories and evidence of Natural Philosophy?

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:38:26 2010 No.2205713

> Philosophy
> worthless

You do realize that a statement about the worth of something is itself a philosophical statement, right? You're making a value judgment, you're trying to define what is and is not "worthwhile," which is a philosophical question.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 08:39:26 2010 No.2205718 >>2205713 Oh shit, what have we done?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:40:26 2010 No.2205725 >>2205713 SHUT THE FUCK UP COMMIE

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:41:26 2010 No.2205728 >>2205713 That's only in a philosophical sense of value. A hammer is more valuable for applying a nail than a screwdriver is for the vast majority of situations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:42:26 2010 No.2205736 >>2205728 No man don't get this fucktard started. Now he's going to argue about how the hammer and screwdriver are the same thing. Philosophy was already finished over 2000 years ago with the Greeks. Everything else is sophistry.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:44:26 2010 No.2205743

>>2205705
You misunderstand. I mean to say that what we call "natural philosophy" is merely a term that is used to cover all of the physical sciences. That is its historical meaning. What we might call biology today was, historically, referred to under the umbrella term of natural philosophy. Of course, as time passed natural philosophy grew more and more complex and expansive as our knowledge of the physical world grew, until it splintered off to become the sciences.

Saying that science replaced natural philosophy is like saying that an adult replaces a child, it is more accurate to say that the latter grew to become the former. Still the same person, only grown up. Likewise, natural philosophy is science and science is natural philosophy.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 08:46:26 2010 No.2205749 >>2205736 But >>2205728 is completely right. And a hammer has neither the same form nor the same function as a screwdriver.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 08:47:26 2010 No.2205750 File: 12 KB, 360x360, not a drill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2205749 Oh, I almost forgot my pic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:48:26 2010 No.2205756 this thread has affected me emotionally

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:52:26 2010 No.2205773

>>2205728
Which is the sense that the OP is using.

And besides, even your post merely states that a hammer is more energy efficient when it comes to hammering in nails than a screwdriver is. That says nothing of which is actually a more worthwhile tool. To do that we would have to determine which is the more worthwhile activity, hammering or screwing. Or more likely what amount of each is best, which is the best course of action in the given situation, which is a question of should, and thus a question of philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 08:55:26 2010 No.2205786

>>2205773
That's only true when philosophy defines itself to be the answer.

The rest of us would say engineering and science decide which is the more valuable tool. In fact, I could make a screwdriver more energy efficient than a hammer at applying nails, and the hammer could still be more valuable, umad?

Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 08:56:26 2010 No.2205791

>>2205773
Oooooh boy.

A hammer is more useful than a screwdriver is a true statement IF we are talking about putting in or removing nails. IF we are talking about putting or removing screws, the reverse statement is true.

As for whether or not you should be using nails or screws in any given situation is a question for an engineer to answer, not a philosopher.

Furthermore, consider the other uses these tools have. A screwdriver can scrape stuff and a hammer can close the lid on a paint can.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:16:26 2010 No.2205845

>>2205786
> That's only true when philosophy defines itself to be the answer.

No, it's when the question itself is philosophical in nature. All questions of should are. The question "what should we do?" is the center piece of moral philosophy.

>>2205791
> As for whether or not you should be using nails or screws in any given situation is a question for an engineer to answer, not a philosopher.

It is still a philosophical question because it requires a definition of better. Which is better in the given situation, X or Y. Better for what? Cost? Safety? For himself? For the people he's building whatever it is for? Are we basing this on the idea that the engineer should be trying to bring about the best consequences, and thus should look primarily at a cost benefit analysis of some sort? Or is this the result of some sort of duty that the engineer has to those who will use the result? Or perhaps a contractual obligation of some kind?

Why should he do X is a philosophical question. Sure, the engineer may be the one to answer it, but we all deal with issues not necessarily within our chosen field. We do so every day. The engineer might have to deal with questions of health, both in terms of what he is building and in his own life in general. Life doesn't divide itself nicely along disciplinary boundaries.

Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 09:24:26 2010 No.2205860
File: 78 KB, 500x560, bobafett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2205845
>Why should he do X is a philosophical question. Sure, the engineer may be the one to answer it, but we all deal with issues not necessarily within our chosen field. We do so every day. The engineer might have to deal with questions of health, both in terms of what he is building and in his own life in general. Life doesn't divide itself nicely along disciplinary boundaries.
You know what? I'll give you that. But the engineer is still going to use a great deal more math and science than he is philosophy when he makes this decision.

>
It is still a philosophical question because it requires a definition of better. Which is better in the given situation, X or Y. Better for what? Cost? Safety? For himself? For the people he's building whatever it is for? Are we basing this on the idea that the engineer should be trying to bring about the best consequences, and thus should look primarily at a cost benefit analysis of some sort? Or is this the result of some sort of duty that the engineer has to those who will use the result? Or perhaps a contractual obligation of some kind?

First, he must follow engineering ethics (which, while varying from country to country, are generally about putting the greater good in front). Second, he will have developed and weighted the criteria he is going to use based on what the client needs, what the user needs, and what any other stakeholders might need in addition to a load of science and math. And no, the client and the user are not always the same thing.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:43:26 2010 No.2205901

>>2205860
> But the engineer is still going to use a great deal more math and science than he is philosophy when he makes this decision.

Because for the most part the philosophical element of the question is already internalized to the point of being automatic. This is the case for the vast majority of people. The basis on which we answer the question is often times determined by upbringing. Whether we look at consequences, duties, contractual obligations, ideas about what is natural or what a deity might want, or (most commonly) some haphazard and internally contradictory amalgam of several of those when trying sort out what should we do is largely a product of what we are taught is most important in making decisions over the course of our upbringing.

The fact that he is an engineer, the fact that he has training in a certain field, knows certain things, and wants certain other things, will all influence his answer. This does not change the fact that the question itself is still philosophical.

> First, he must follow engineering ethics (which, while varying from country to country, are generally about putting the greater good in front).

Which is an example of the presence of philosophy within other disciplines. Ethics is one of the primary branches of philosophy, what is ethical is itself an extension of the question of should. Simply saying that he'll follow engineering ethics misses the more important question of what exactly that entails. They're a codified answer to the question of should, and thus still philosophy.

> Second, he will have developed and weighted the criteria he is going to use based on what the client needs, what the user needs, and what any other stakeholders might need in addition to a load of science and math.

And there are issues here as well, such as whose needs take precedent in a conflict, how should we go about resolving those conflicts, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:44:26 2010 No.2205905 Why are so many people on /sci/ so proud to proclaim their ignorance? You people are weird.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:45:26 2010 No.2205907 >>2205901 tl;dr philosophy defines itself to be the answer

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 09:47:26 2010 No.2205910 >>2205907 Sounds about right. I mean, there are smacks of philosophy here and there in engineering, but at the end of the day it's more math and science, and it's all about results.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:51:26 2010 No.2205915 >>2205907 >all ways of thinking and logic define philosophy to be the answer fix'd

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 09:58:26 2010 No.2205922

>>2205910
> I mean, there are smacks of philosophy here and there in engineering
I never said otherwise. However, once you introduce ethics into the mix, you're also playing with philosophy. As I said before, life doesn't divide itself nicely along disciplinary boundaries. You'll end up using philosophy whenever you try to tackle a question of should, because that question is philosophical in nature. It's the defining question of moral philosophy.

> it's all about results.
Which is itself the result of a distinct consequentialist bent present within many of the "hard" sciences. I happen to agree with it, and I think that we should expand it to include more than just a subject like engineering, but at the same time claiming that this distinguishes it from philosophy is incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:02:26 2010 No.2205927 >>2205922 And this is why we shouldn't teach philosophy. All it does it create a bunch of pretentious morons who talk in circles. IT. IS. WORTHLESS. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:02:26 2010 No.2205929 THIS IS WHY I FUCKING HATE PHILOSOPHERS FUCKING SOPHISTRY EVERYWHERE

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:03:26 2010 No.2205931 Science: Natural philosophy for people with no imagination, destined to forever test trivial hypotheses and being a leech of research grants while the rest of the world is getting laid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:03:26 2010 No.2205932 >>2205922 >engineering What does homosexuality have to do with anything?

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:08:26 2010 No.2205947

Philosophy never built a bridge. History never cured a disease. Literature never put a satellite in orbit.

There. No sophistry. No bullshit definitions. No talking in circles. Cold, hard facts.

That's why philosophy is worthless. It has never achieved anything. We only waste money teaching it because of egotistical morons like you who want to feel oh so important without actually contributing anything. You're all wastes of resources, we should have let you starve centuries ago.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:09:26 2010 No.2205951 >>2205947 You are a faggot. shoot yourself u little fag athirst is a religion

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:12:26 2010 No.2205960 >>2205947 Science never built a bridge either. It can only verify that bridges exist. Engineering never built a bridge either. It merely designed it. The proletariat built that bridge, and you're a cunt.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:12:26 2010 No.2205961

>>2205951
And that's all the philosophers can come up with in response. Typical. When the chips are down they reveal they were never anything but a bunch of morons. Thanks for so wonderfully illustrating my point.

We shouldn't waste money on parasites like philosophers, or historians, or literary studies, or any of those other bullshit subjects.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:13:26 2010 No.2205964 >>2205961 Science is a waste of time. Give me one example of science being useful to anyone but the scientists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:14:26 2010 No.2205967 >>2205964 The computer you're using. Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:15:26 2010 No.2205970 >>2205967 No, nature made my computer. Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:18:26 2010 No.2205979 File: 18 KB, 476x357, Kirbyraeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2205970 FUCK YOU

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:19:26 2010 No.2205982 >>2205979 u mad nerd

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:20:26 2010 No.2205985 >>2205967 Sorry, the computer I'm using descends from military designs that precede both Computer Science and Information Theory. The military created computers.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 10:22:26 2010 No.2205988 >>2205970 >nature made this computer I'm going to have to agree with >>2205927 >>2205947 >>2205961 now, although we should keep historians around for the sake of not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:26:26 2010 No.2205997

>>2205988
Fuck the historians. What have they ever made? All they ever do is sit around and read about shit that happened a thousand years ago. We don't need them to avoid mistakes, we could do that on our own if we just stopped wasting time with bullshit like "liberal arts" and "social sciences."

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:28:26 2010 No.2205999

>>2205922
> However, once you introduce ethics into the mix, you're also playing with philosophy.

Who cares? We shouldn't have either of them dragging down real subjects.

Ethics never built anything, it never made anything real, all it does is talk in circles and try to tell us what we can't do. FUCK. THAT.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:30:26 2010 No.2206002

GOOD philosophy would say to go learn science and maths, since that's what the world runs on, and it IS all about the results. GOOD philosophy is nothing more than thinking about your problems in depth and nonstupidly, using logic.

That said, your typical undergraduate philosophy course is a piece of shit full of people who think free will is an important and controversial question. As such, I agree with the sentiment of the OP.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:41:26 2010 No.2206013

>>2206002
> GOOD
> philosophy

Pick one. Philsophy is exclusively a bunch of lazy, self important assholes who want to leech off of a society and give nothing worthwhile back. They're a bunch of fucking parasites. We should treat them like parasites and cut them out.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 10:45:26 2010 No.2206021

OP, you're absolutely right. The philosophers are simply writers who could not make it as poets or novelists, and never learned to "show and not tell" Dostoyevsky accomplished everything that the later "existentialists" did, and with a poetic grace. Honestly, I agree with this..epistemology really should be left to the scientists and the more nebulous, ecstatic truths to the poets../lit/ here btw. If you posted this on there they would shit brix I promise.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:06:26 2010 No.2206071

>>2206021
> /lit/ here btw.

Fuck you, you're just as bad as the philosophers. Never producing anything worthwhile, leeching off those who do, and then parading around you ignorance while trying to pretend to be something other than a lazy moron who didn't have the intelligence or focus to make it in a REAL subject.

Literature, philosophy, history, all the social "sciences," they're all the same. All worthless.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:09:26 2010 No.2206077 >>2206071 Haha, the funny thing is that our mothers loved us and we don't go through our whole lives worrying ourselves to impotency over whether we are "useful" or not... "mother, father am i useful now? DO YOU LOVE ME NOW?!?!" ~OP

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 11:13:26 2010 No.2206085 >>2206077 >implying we give a fuck about whether or not our parents love us

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:15:26 2010 No.2206096

>>2206085
oh you do, you do. That is why you try so hard to be useful. I MUST HAVE A PURPOSE I MUST BE USEFUL ONLY THEN WILL FATHER APPROVE! MOTHER? MOTHER CAN YOU HEAR ME?! I COLLECTED DATA THAT DEMONSTRATES A PROBABILITY OF STATISTICAL DEVIATION FROM PREVIOUS VALUES!!! CAN I BE USEFUL NOW?
lrn2psychology--i know you think it's useless but that's just because you want to avoid the truth.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 11:18:26 2010 No.2206107 >>2206096 >implying it's about parents, and not about self-worth 0/10

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:21:26 2010 No.2206116

>>2206107
It's not about parents to those of us who are okay with being "useless" in the sense that op is suggesting, and love what we love. OP lacks self-worth and so spends his time hopelessly defending the utility of his actions, there is a Lacanian "big other" constantly stalking his every move, and this of course is the result of an unhealthy parental relationship, the oedipal triangle. OP needs therapy.

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 11:22:26 2010 No.2206118 >>2206116 OP is just fine. Go sodomize a badger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:22:37 2010 No.2206117 To the guy hating arts, history, literate, philosophy, etc. You are either a troll or a fucking retard who is brainwashed. Best you stop drinking that fluoride, bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:23:26 2010 No.2206121 To the guy hating arts, history, literature, philosophy, etc. You are either a troll or a fucking retard who is brainwashed. Best you stop drinking that fluoride, bro.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:25:26 2010 No.2206128

>>2206118
Do you really think Arts, Philosophy, History, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are "useless" (as though, something that exists in the material capacity that these disciplines do, could ever really be without utility, if that were the case would they be afforded the existence they have? either way...) basically, if they are truly useless, then how are so many people using them?

>>	lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM Wed Dec 15 11:34:26 2010 No.2206154 >implying this thread was over at this post >>2205639 fukin nerds have to troll each other

>>	Naggarothian Wed Dec 15 11:35:26 2010 No.2206155 File: 115 KB, 1440x1190, aethersfaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2206154 psychopath detected

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:36:26 2010 No.2206162

Philosophy is the root of all science, and whenever a philosophical problem can be tested and data/empirical evidence acquired on the subject, that philosophical topic becomes a scientific topic. So suck my fat one. If you were to reject philosophy you are rejecting everything philosophy is responsible for, so why the fuck are you on this thread. OP is a fag.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 11:43:26 2010 No.2206181 I find it ironic that OP doesn't see the irony that his opinion IS a philosophical position.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math