[ 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: 29 KB, 747x588, weird-al-in-color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3748825 [Reply] [Original]

Philosophy is part of science right?
Well... Let's start a philosophy thread!
Sadly, I feel like I don't know a lot... even though I took the course in HS.
So what are some philosophical theorys/ideas/beliefs that you have that you would say are pretty interesting?
There's a chance this thread might not work, but I love this topic and so I'm trying it anyway.

>> No.3748833

>in b4 250 reply shitstorm

Good luck OP.

Also, Captcha: drunkards, igening

>> No.3748844

I'm just not sure where to start...
I'd say my fav 'genre' is Meta-physics.


I also have a handful of books from famous philosophers, but I have a hard time reading them. It's like a sickness I have. I'm SO excited about reading it, I can't pay attention to what it's saying. It's like a form of ADD.

>> No.3748847

karl popper is the only one worth a damn

>> No.3748850

oh, and bertrand russell

>> No.3748855

>Philosophy is part of science right?
no /thread

>> No.3748871

>>3748850
I've never heard of Popper, but I do have a book from Russel. The Problems of Philosophy.
I do hope one day I'll be able to read it.

>> No.3748946

Philosophy Grad Student here. Feel free to ask me anything.

First I'll start of by clarifying that you've got it backwards - Science is part of Philosophy. Scientists were called "Natural Philosophers" before the term "Science" was used, it's also related to why if you take any page on Wikipedia and click the first non parenthetical link you will end up back at Philosophy eventually.

>> No.3749158

>>3748946
Are there objective morals?

>> No.3749183

>>3749158

It depends on what you think the word "morals" means.

>> No.3749185

Bitches don't know bout "The will to power"

>> No.3749189
File: 37 KB, 193x226, witt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.3749193

>>3749158
Yes.

>> No.3749201

Nietzsche and Wittgenstein in the same post? I'm game.

>> No.3749205

existence has no origin in the sense that it is fractal

>> No.3749209

>>3748844

That's called being stupid

>> No.3749214

>>3749193

Wrong, it comes down to whether you look at morals as being defined by the well being of conscious creatures or the self evident subjectivity of people.

>> No.3749225

The problem I have with philosophy is that it doesn't get us anywehere. You can devote your whole life to studying it but it won't change anything to help the human race.. you will just discuss people's views on the matter and thats it... whats the point?

>> No.3749231
File: 10 KB, 484x491, picit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Hay OP, I drew a picture for you so you won't get it wrong next time.

>> No.3749239

>>3749158

The commonplace belief, I believe, is that morality is at the very least intersubjective if not objective, it evolves naturally among social species (So morality is real in the same way thumbs are real), is pluralistic (So acts are "Better" or "Worse", not "Good" or "Evil"), and has something to do with psychological and physical health, and preventing needless suffering. See also "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Personally, I'm a Deontologist; I believe there are objective duties which arise from being a rational being. The key is acting in a way that is consistant and not ultimately self-undermining, which is still a sound "Yes" to your question.

>> No.3749242

Can't remember which paradox it is.. but the one that says if you wanted to get from A to B, you'd need to go halfway first. And before you got halfway, you'd need to travel a quarter of the distance

So in order to move somewhere you need to complete an infinite number of tasks in a finite time. Explanations anyone?

>> No.3749248

>>3749214
By looking at it from both perspectives, hell either one of them you will arrive at an objective morality.

>> No.3749250

>>3749225
Yeah, what's the point of discussing things. That's never taken us anywhere.
You do realize things such as much of our politics (democraty and socialism for instance), art and even science are long time products of philosophical discussion, right?
It might not be an immediate consequence of philosophy, and much of it is, quite frankly, just bullshit. But you can't just say it doesn't take us anywhere. In the very heart of it, philosophy is what's taken us everywhere.

>> No.3749251

>>3749242
It's Zeno's dichotomy paradox. Its solved perfectly with modern mathematics. Ancient Greeks didn't know how convergent series work.

>> No.3749256

>>3749242
Zeno's Paradox

>> No.3749262

>>3749242
It's part of the Zeno's paradoxes

>> No.3749271

>>3749251
>>3749256
>>3749262

/sci/vemind

>> No.3750010

one of the most important ideas needing working out right now is the Anthropic Principle. check this guy out http://www.nickbostrom.com/