[ 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: 42 KB, 400x301, Ludwig_Wittgenstein_by_Ben_Richards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5068269 No.5068269 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ I have to ask you something. Philosophy - has it become obsolete in the modern world? What does it do? Why do we need Zizek, Derrida, Lacan?

Back in the day Isaac Newton called himself - "a natural philosopher" - today he would be called a physicist.

Todays philosophers are more like sociologists and ethic/moral philosophers with a communist bias.

>> No.5068276

bump

>> No.5068279

You've read too much continental philosophy.

>> No.5068283

>>5068279
Throw me a bone here. What do you recommend?

>> No.5068288

Science can't do ethics. How we decide to weigh everybody's desires as a society, and as altruistic individuals, is a non-trivial decision. Especially when we're no longer bound by the ethical chains of evolution.

Ontology has been completely enveloped by scientific cosmology and (neuro)psychology though. The human experience can be fully described as the operation of the human brain which we are growing to understand, and the nature and cause of existence is being grasped at with multiverses and subjective probabilities.

>> No.5068291

>>5068288

Too bad ontologists don't have any say in how the world is run.

They just talk to each other just to sound smart, while doing absolutely nothing.

>> No.5068292

Ah, no, this >>5068288
He has the right idea with ontology.

>> No.5068298
File: 320 KB, 300x169, 1336202513471.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5068298

>>5068291
Ontology deliberates how the world <span class="math">itself[/spoiler] runs.

>> No.5068304

>>5068298

But it doesn't effect it.

It's like saying that /v/ is important because they talk about video games.

>> No.5068308

>>5068304
>effect
not sure if have to correct with a snide remark

>> No.5068312

>>5068304
>can't differentiate between affect and effect
You're so not helping your cause.

It does affect it. Although there is no conceivable applications in the business world, you'll pacify all kinds of people if they can understand how here is here.

And that's a terrible analogy because /v/ can and does influence the industry.

>> No.5068313

>>5068308

You're why people hate philosophers.

>> No.5068316
File: 39 KB, 300x377, dennett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5068316

>>5068269
what makes you think that Zizek, Derrida and Lacan are in any way representative of modern philosophy? They are postmodernist posers.

Read some Dennett for instance (e.g. Breaking the Spell for philosophical consequences of the cogintive science of religion or Sweet Dreams as an introduction to the philosophy of mind), maybe it will persuade you that at least some strands of modern philosophy are worthwhile.

>> No.5068323

>>5068313

Nobody hates philosophers, except those who have closed minds. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste, which is the motto for the NAACP, and it fits this dicsussion.

Plato was a philosopher, and he was also the first scientist.

>> No.5068341

>>5068316
okay. will do.

>> No.5068347

>>5068269
>today's philosophers
They're obsolete because the field is. Philosophy is part of the scientist's skill set, anything else is politics.

>> No.5068349

>>5068323
Plato was also fucking retarded.

Philosophy is becoming more and more useless and time goes on. Back in the day, you used philosophy to ask questions, and science to answer them. Today science is answering questions philosophers never asked.

And when it comes to ethics, philosophers like to sit around and talk about what it means to be 'just'. I think 99% of people can decide morals for themselves without people who got a PHD in reading the works of Plato.

>> No.5068400

Philosophy is not becoming irrelevant to the modern world. It is more applicable than ever. The analysis of greater patterns is never irrelevant. The only thing becoming irrelevant is peoples understanding of the world. You can explain it with facts, but right now not very well. Only the details can be explained with facts, none of the really important things.

>> No.5068411

>>5068349

plato was the smartest man who ever lived at the time, and he was an excellent scientist who helped discover the planets without a telescope.

>> No.5068431

>>5068323
>>5068411

Troll detected.

>> No.5068436

>>5068269

we will always need philosophers to balance out the technologists. same way that we will always be theological in some way, whether it be worship of your form of god, or meditation to gather karma.

everyone has a soul and it needs nourishment the same as any other organ. those who starve their souls live lifes of isolated desperation.

>> No.5068439

>>5068431

You are the Troll. Thanks for asking.

>> No.5068824

>>5068436
What does balance out the technologists mean?

>> No.5068831

Philosophy is logic, at least to some degree.

The extension of OP's question is to ponder whether logic has become obsolete in the modern world. Considering the ubiquity and widespread use of computing devices, the answer is a resounding "No."

>> No.5068860

True philosophy - to me - IS science and vice versa.
But yeah, there are many philosophers who mistake "thinking deeply" with "thinking clearly", as Tesla said.

Spinoza is a great guy to read for everybody - especially scientists, in my own opinion.

>> No.5068874

>>5068436
hurrrr

>> No.5068876

>Todays philosophers are more like sociologists and ethic/moral philosophers with a communist bias.
Interestingly enough, real communists oppose the dichotomy between philosophy and science.

>> No.5068880

Protip: No one in /sci/ is anywhere near knowledgeable about what philosophy is and what philosophers actually do to say anything worth listening to. What you will get here is mere ignorance and hand waving.

>> No.5068893

>>5068860
>True philosophy - to me - IS science and vice versa.
No. The only part of philosophy that have anything to do with science is philosophy of science, and that largely amounts to circlejerking about induction.

Philosophy and science concern themselves with largely mutually exclusive realms of knowledge. The fundamental concept of science is that it relies on testing observable phenomena; it cannot begin to speak about intangibles the way that philosophy does.

>> No.5068908

>>5068893
>Philosophy and science concern themselves with largely mutually exclusive realms of knowledge.

Science is subclass of philosophy.

>> No.5068911

/sci/ - Philosophy, Popsci, and Highschool Homework

>> No.5068915

>>5068908
>Science is subclass of philosophy.
Yes, that's why I referenced philosophy of science, because the philosophy of science is the philosophical basis for all scientific endeavours.

>> No.5068990

I deeply love philosophy and hate how leftist pop philosophy is the norm.

You are not getting a definitive answer from half a page. The more philosophical works you read the more you realize you dont know shit and how absolutely branching and enormous seemingly simple concepts can be, how many concepts and norms we hold axiomatically, and how far human knowledge and rational thinking get. You will never arrive to answers, only more questions and you acquire knowledge and wisdom by formulating the questions yourself and understanding what to they refer to and whats the goal of questioning things.

You cant study philosophy without deep curiousity and humility, accepting not only you lack knowledge but your every single concept and idiom you hold might be flawed and in the end you will end up with no tangible benefits.

Very, very few people actually understand philosophical questions and pop philosophy is so rampant that if you dont start reading and comparing philosophical works yourself you will just end up spouting shallow bullshit.

>> No.5069054

Depends on what you call philosophy. If you think about philosophy as just studying what someone who lived hundreds of years ago said about their opinions, then it's irrelevant. If you think about it as the ability of questioning and knowing how to use logic, it's never irrelevant. However, I would say that the most useful part of philosophy is merged with science nowadays.

>> No.5069104

If you think the meaningless drivel Zizek dribbles into the faces of his legions of adoring teenage stoners is philosophy, then I don't blame you for feeling this way. But it isn't.