/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5253164]

Favorite philosopher? Pic related.

[Anonymous No.5253189]

>>5253186
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.5253185]

Kurt Goedel

[Anonymous No.5253186]

George Carlin and Louis CK

[Anonymous No.5253229]

[Anonymous No.5253237]

Modern day Descartes

[Anonymous No.5253251]

>>5253237
see
>>5253189

[Anonymous No.5253261]

>>5253185
>theist

bahahahahaha baka gaijin

[Anonymous No.5253263]

[Anonymous No.5253266]

>>5253251
>Pleb thinks Slavoj Zizek is deep

[Anonymous No.5253270]

>>5253185

This is one of my favorite pictures

[Anonymous No.5253271]

Bertnard Russell

[Anonymous No.5253276]

>>5253266
Seconded.
Costanza is truly one of the greatest minds of philosophy.
Most others, like OP's are just faggot pretenders who only do philo because they flunked out of art school

[Anonymous No.5253273]

>>5253164

[Anonymous No.5253280]

>>5253270
Niice!

>>5253261
Goedel did not inject religion into any of his papers, which were highly cutting edge mathematics. As long as someone keeps their papers secular, I could care less if they worship the sun and moon

[Anonymous No.5253286]

This qt.

[Anonymous No.5253287]

>>5253266

Zizek is brilliant, but extremely hard to follow. I've been watching him do lectures on Youtube for a while, and I decided to pick up one of his books at the library.

Very academic and very hard to follow, but I didn't get the sense that he was hiding behind sciolistic language.

Nothing like Heidegger or Baudrillard, but still grasping at straws sometimes, like every Hegelian I've ever encountered.

[Anonymous No.5253283]

>>5253273
>>5253263

>favorite philosopher thread
>posting pictures of philosophers from uber-wealthy aristocratic families
>implying they would have even graduated without that advantage

[Anonymous No.5253291]

I like David Hume!

[Anonymous No.5253294]

>>5253287
What you described is the exact opposite of Zizek.

[Anonymous No.5253298]

>>5253286

My nigga.

[Anonymous No.5253295]

Aristotle

[Anonymous No.5253297]

>>5253283
> knowing nothing about Wittgenstein but that his family was wealthy
It's cool, philosophers as people aren't very interesting (except for Leibniz).

[Anonymous No.5253301]

>>5253297
>interesting
>a complete joke
Did not know they are synonyms, thanks for the knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5253305]

>>5253301
Is /sci/ like /v/ now? I've been away for a while.

[Anonymous No.5253306]

>>5253297

Wittgenstein is quite an interesting piece of autobiography... very interesting actually. I think I find the idea of him-- the intense genius enfant terrible of philosophy-- more intriguing than his ideas.

[Anonymous No.5253308]

>>5253306
>Wittgenstein
>terrible of philosophy
You got that right.

[Anonymous No.5253318]

>>5253266

Damn, William Shatner has sure gotten old.

[Anonymous No.5253313]

Nietzsche, since he's the only one who's never wrong.

[Anonymous No.5253314]

>>5253294

Zizek is not brilliant, and is not extremely hard to follow. Zizek is not very academic, and not very hard to follow. He is hiding behind sciolistic language.

He's exactly like Heidegger or Baudrillard, but he doesn't grasp at straws like other Hegelians.

?

[Anonymous No.5253326]

>>5253313
Everyone I know who is right always agrees with me.

[Anonymous No.5253323]

>>5253314
Yeah pretty much.

[Anonymous No.5253332]

>>5253308

My God... are you seriously? Do you??

Do you realize that Russell considered Wittgenstein the epitome of genius, and felt that his intellectual presence made his own (Russel's) (serious) philosophical work unimportant?

[Anonymous No.5253334]

>>5253306
Wittgenstein's strategy and thought process pretty much go like this:
>hmm. I can live comfortably and be a Grade-A philosopher purely on the strength of my family wealth
>or I can live less comfortably and be hailed forever as Aristotle II because I acted eccentric and gave my money away
>Shit, if I make up some baloney about volunteering for a dangerous mission in WWI, I'll be bigger than Plato!

[Anonymous No.5253338]

Zizek seems like an idiot, based on what I have seen him say on youtube.

I have been reading Wittgenstein recently, I am very impressed. I have appreciated Nietzsche for a while now.

[Anonymous No.5253342]

Motherfucking Plato!

Sadly, I only ever see him being misinterpreted. So please don't listen to the shit philosophers tell you about him...

[Anonymous No.5253340]

>>5253313

Nietzsche was a piece of classicist shit. And he had an ego bigger than the sun. I think his philosophy is mostly a celebration of his perceived self-importance.

[Anonymous No.5253345]

>>5253334
so it is /v/ now, great

[Anonymous No.5253346]

>>5253340
>ego bigger than the sun
>bigger than the sun
>ego bigger than the largest object in the known universe
Christ. At least make your analogies make sense.

[Anonymous No.5253344]

>>5253338
why bother reading Wittgenstein?
Just read a modern (published in the last 20 years) book on formal logic.
Reading Wittgenstein is like trying to learn calculus by reading the Principia

[Anonymous No.5253350]

>>5253346

0/10

[Anonymous No.5253351]

>>5253346
>sun
>largest object in the known universe

[Anonymous No.5253352]

>>5253349
Obviously it's possible, he just did it.

[Anonymous No.5253349]

>>5253334

I do not believe it is possible to draw such conclusions after making even a very superficial survey of Wittgenstein's life and work.

[Anonymous No.5253353]

>>5253332
>Aristocrat A thinks Aristocrat B is absolutely swell

Shit son. Epitome of genius?! I've got two words for you, Srinivasa Ramanujan. (Will never be a household name, since his family didn't own thousands of acres of land in a major Western European country)

[Anonymous No.5253358]

>>5253342

Are we supposed to listen to your unqualified ass instead?

[Anonymous No.5253360]

>>5253344

I have studied some amount of logic in school. Has the community of philosophers of logic actually learned anything from wittgenstein?

I have read just the tractatus so far. I plan on reading the rest.

Wittgenstein had unique insights, and was complete in his presentation. Thats admirable. I suspect the bulk of all academia, including the academia of philosophy are basically wasting time and periodically publishing garbage.

[Anonymous No.5253362]

>needing to learn logic
How do you even breath?

[Anonymous No.5253364]

>>5253358
Presumably you'd read the actual works. I guess you wouldn't know anything about that...?

[Anonymous No.5253366]

>>5253360
Read Philosophical Investigations

[Anonymous No.5253369]

>>5253360
>I suspect the bulk of all academia, including the academia of philosophy are basically wasting time and periodically publishing garbage.

Question (not rhetorical or trolling, please do respond). Do you actually read present-day philosophy journals? Or are you basing your "suspicion" off nothing but academic stereotypes?

>I have studied some amount of logic in school. Has the community of philosophers of logic actually learned anything from wittgenstein?

Wittgenstein's ideas about the object vs. the name (or whatever he described the two as) helped lead us to Tarski's notion of truth in a model, which is of utmost importance. Aside from that, he didn't contribute much besides philporn for undergrads. Which is why I say you should read a modern text instead: in 5 pages you can get all the benefit, in a superior form, that you'd get out of the tractatus

[Anonymous No.5253372]

>>5253366

I plan on it!

I did some reading into different theories of truth from the SEP. At first it was kind of uncomfortable knowing that we could not agree on what truth meant. But now I feel comfortable with this disagreement. Seems like truth just means different stuff in different contexts. Since we should be percise in our statements, its best to use particular words other than "truth."

[Anonymous No.5253376]

This is kinda borderline, but if you read on his studies outside of clinical psychology, he is more of a mystic and visionary philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5253382]

Tractatus shows that all philosophical problems are ultimately problems of language. How do you even write a philosophical book after that?

[Anonymous No.5253388]

>>5253372
In a sense, Wittgenstein was rediscovering continental philosophy from an analytical perspective. If, at the end of his life, he read Heidegger, I wonder what he'd say. Quite a bit of the problems encountered directly in the Tractutus come up again in AI, but the chief proponent with the problems of AI---that I've read---is Heideggerian (Dreyfus).

[Anonymous No.5253389]

>>5253369

Well, I am not as well read as some of my peers. But I am reading more and more every day.

I have read a lot of SEP articles. The most recent academic articles on philosophy I can think of off the top of my head I read/perused were about the following:

1. Kantian ethics and game theory (stupid)
2. Arguement that no false proposition can be justified
3. Paper on democracy
4. Paper about KK-principle

Fields like epistemology just seem like one massive bundle of patch work. Someone comes up with a shitty but believable idea, 5 years later someone finds a glaring hole in the idea and everyone spends their time "resolving" this problem.

I read beliefly about tarski. I didnt really understand his ideas but since its well recognized maybe I should read about it again.

[Anonymous No.5253402]

>>5253388

Yeah, thats an interesting depiction of wittgenstein. I do feel like Wittgenstein was "continental" or whatever. Wittgenstein takes this painful effort to be concise and depicts the same ideas that I think Nietzsche, or Kiekegaard depict, even if Nietzsche or Kiekegaard had no capacity of being clear or concise.

[Anonymous No.5253407]

>>5253389
I agree that epistemology right now somewhat resembles 19th century Germany-- a bunch of far-flung city-states struggling to find a unified identity-- but its strong point is that it's full of hard cold theorems. Consistency and inconsistency results are proven using mathematics, sometimes very sophisticated mathematics, not by droning on and on in academicspeak and trying to sound mystical-- that'll get thrown right straight out!

The way I see it, when there's no math involved, there's too much (implicit) appeal to authority (hence the aristocrat problem) and it's more of a debate club than a rigorous science. Philosopher A very eloquently argues a false position, Philosopher B clumsily argues a true position, without mathematics everyone's going to side with A!

[Anonymous No.5253411]

>>5253358
Well, I'd gladly help you, but it'd be way better if you read it yourself. It's not like I have a special hidden interpretation, I just read a good amount of his work. That said, you'd need to find a good translation and/or learn ancient Greek to not be prejudiced. (Before someone asks, I did the later.)

[Anonymous No.5253414]

>>5253411
>the later
Might want to try learning English there, buddy.

[Anonymous No.5253422]

>>5253407

What kind of mathematics is relevant to epistemology?

I study math in school, and I am getting more and more critical of its foundations. I think Wittgenstein effectively argued that math is senseless. Its just some invented arrangement of symbols. Any connection to reality it may appear to have is only because we accept error, and loosely defined assumptions.

[Anonymous No.5253419]

>>5253414
Well, English isn't my first language, either... What did I mean to say?

[Anonymous No.5253427]

>>5253419
Latter, you fucking illiterate buffoon.

[Anonymous No.5253428]

>>5253414

You are a jerk. Obviously you could understand every thing he just said. What use is language but for conveying information?

[Anonymous No.5253425]

>>5253422
so edgy

[Anonymous No.5253431]

>>5253428
idk my bff jill ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.5253436]

Just in case anyone was interested, most of these posts are by the "pseudo-intellectuals" community of philosophers. The one's who misinterpret Wittgenstein and argue from a self defeating position of nihilism. Modern academic philosophy does not hold either of these views. These views are of the pop-culture sort along with the philosophy of shitty Zizek. Most academic philosophy is of the rigor and clarity found in Godel, Russell and Kripke. We use formal logic, linguistics and naturalized epistemology in our pursuits of knowledge. If there was any a time for /sci/ to act like /sci/, now is the time. Call these pseudo-intellectuals on their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5253435]

>>5253389
> KK-principle
If this is the "if I know X then I know that 'I know X'" then check this out:

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/epistemic-logic-temporal-epistemic-logic-and-the-blue-eyed-
islander-puzzle-lower-bound/

[Anonymous No.5253439]

>>5253427
Oh yeah, right. However, calm down. It's ok now.

[Anonymous No.5253442]

>>5253425

What? I am not doubting its practical. But practicality is an empirical matter. Shouldnt philosophy be concerned about non-emprical things? How much of the mathematical academia care whether or not mathematics has any meaning at all? Probably not much, because admitting such wouldnt get them employed! So that bothers me that academia is not being honest. Real intellectual pursuits MUST be honest. Nothing good is going to come from mathematicians who are just snubbing and critiquing each others rearrangement of symbols and rule following.

[Anonymous No.5253438]

>>5253436
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.5253445]

>>5253422
>What kind of mathematics is relevant to epistemology?
Considering that AI could be bunched into the epistemology umbrella, the answer is "a damn lot!" But I'll assume you meant just formal epistemology as studied in philosophy departments...

Even so restricted, epistemology draws heavily from graph theory (Kripke semantics), proof theory (Gentzen-style consistency proofs), first-order logic (de re vs. de dicto knowledge etc.), even combinatorics (ordinal notation systems).

But don't take my word for it. Just open up Synthese, the Journal of Philosophical Logic, the Logic Journal of the IGPL, Mind, Nous, the Review of Symbolic Logic, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.5253444]

>>5253439
>Yuropoor
>telling me to calm down
That's rich.

[Anonymous No.5253453]

>>5253436

"We"?

I admit I am an amatuer (who has studied formal logic and recognizes the value of rigorous philosophic work) but I think a lot of the students of philosophy at my university are really just dumb pot smoking kids.

Not to say they are ALL pot smoking kids. I know a handful of very knowledgeable students. But I mean to say neither you or I can make statements about what philosophers do or dont use. Or what standards they must meet.

[Anonymous No.5253458]

>>5253445

Thank you, I will look into this.

[Anonymous No.5253459]

>>5253453
TROLLED

[Anonymous No.5253462]

>>5253340
>I think his philosophy is mostly a celebration of his perceived self-importance.
Self-importance is a prerequisite to philosophy. A philosophy that says "these thoughts are unimportant" is useless.

[Anonymous No.5253467]

>>5253462
>anything
>not useless
Open your damn eyes.

[Anonymous No.5253473]

>>5253467

How could everything be useless?

[Anonymous No.5253480]

>>5253473
Nothing matters in the end, the universe will explode on itself in a few thousand years and everything that happened will be undone.

[Anonymous No.5253482]

>>5253480

So? How does that imply that anything is useless? I will be dead. Does that mean nothing is worth doing in the meantime?

[Anonymous No.5253484]

>>5253482
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5253492]

>>5253480
>implying physicists are right about that
>implying the current models of physics are finally the ultimate correct ones even though all other models throughout history proved to be wrong

[Anonymous No.5253497]

>>5253484

Well then how do you explain your and my compulsion to do things?

Obviously we feel that its not useless talking to each other. I grant you that perhaps it is senseless to suggest I SHOULD do something. But that doesnt mean its useless to do anything. You are coming to unwarranted conclusions.

For something to be useless, we must have a means of analyzing its use, and if we dont have a means, we simply dont have an answer regarding use. This is different from concluding there is no such thing as "use."

[Anonymous No.5253501]

>>5253497
Bro if I felt like anything mattered at all, I wouldn't be here (www.4chan.org/sci/) at all right now. I would be doing something.

[Anonymous No.5253509]

>>5253501

Well you are doing something.

Dont speak casually on philosophic matters. If you do something it implies you had some reason for doing so, even if that reason was purely mechanical.

[Anonymous No.5253513]

>>5253509
I'm doing it cause I'm bored and lazy and addicted.

[Anonymous No.5253521]

>>5253164
zlavoj zizek is a fucking goon.

[Anonymous No.5253525]

>>5253164
lol you say that trash man is philosopher. You'll have to deal with muh sister Judy Butler

[Anonymous No.5253536]

>>5253442
>Shouldnt philosophy be concerned about non-emprical things?
No. For that, there is religion and scifi.

>How much of the mathematical academia care whether or not mathematics has any meaning at all?

Surprisingly a huge amount, far more than is even justified (see below).

> Probably not much
Here you admit to speaking out of your ass. Lrn2researchb4publishingclaims

>because admitting such wouldnt get them employed!
I'm lost for words. You think research mathematicians are in it for the money, or something?

>So that bothers me that academia is not being honest. Real intellectual pursuits MUST be honest. Nothing good is going to come from mathematicians who are just snubbing and critiquing each others rearrangement of symbols and rule following.

Wherein you reveal the not-so-surprising truth, that you were never any good at math.

Mathematicians are far more concerned with the foundations of their subject than any other discipline. You may subscribe to the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list here: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom/

Now, this is not to say they've proven math is 100% sound. Quite the opposite, they're well aware they can't. That's hardly unique (besides the awareness part). Any bong-hitting freshman will explain to you that we can't really know anything, that it could all be an illusion, that we could all be hallucinating, etc (pic related). But at the end of the day, that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands in despair. We try to understand the universe as well as we can. And mathematicians do a damn sight better at it than any other people in the world.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5253548]

best philosopher ever. pic related.

[Anonymous No.5253551]

>>5253536

>No. For that, there is religion and scifi.

Logic is not empirical. There is a non-empirical component of ethics. Math isnt empirical. Not being empirical does not imply its just for religion or sci-fi.

>I'm lost for words. You think research mathematicians are in it for the money, or something?

No. But they do need to get paid.

I am in academia, studying math. I think your claims are either pointless or disagreeable.

[Anonymous No.5253559]

In the end there was only ever one philosopher. And how name was Socrates

In the before times there was also the laughing philosopher, and the weeping philosopher. Both genies

And if you're gonna hate for being rich and white, might as well call the hobo down the street your favorite philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5253568]

[Anonymous No.5253597]

>>5253559
you'd be surprised at the shit that comes out of hobros mouths.

[Anonymous No.5253662]

David Hume
David Chalmers
Aristotle

[Anonymous No.5253674]

Does Chomsky count?

[Anonymous No.5253678]

>>5253164
You only like him because he looks like a filthy hobo.

[Anonymous No.5253681]

How do I into philosophy? Where do I start?

[Anonymous No.5253686]

>>5253189

It's like you refuse to understand humor.
The comedy stylings of George Carlin and Louis CK are virtually unparalleled in the world of good jokes.

[Anonymous No.5253695]

I like Baudrillard, even though he's sometimes nihilist. He takes Nietzsche seriously, and he's actually enjoyable to read.

[Anonymous No.5253696]

>>5253185
THIS

[Anonymous No.5254260]

>>5253678
mommy didn't allow you to play outside?

[Anonymous No.5254723]

Elí de Gortari.

[Anonymous No.5254758]

>science and math board.
>not having the fat scottish man as favorite philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5254826]

deepest thinker of our times

[Anonymous No.5254837]

>>5253360
the tractacus is fucking garbage

[Anonymous No.5254842]

>>5253480
>implying that the negation of value is not a value judgement in of itself

silly anon

[Anonymous No.5254844]

Howard bloom

[Anonymous No.5254851]

Marx Derrida Buddha

Practice of Dialecticism + structuralism/deconstructionism will lead to the most accurate insight

[Anonymous No.5255200]

>mfw not a single female philosopher ITT

/sci/ confirmed for sexist.

[Anonymous No.5255214]

>>5255200
There's no female philosopher that are substantial. It would be dump to mention them to not to appear as sexist.

[Anonymous No.5256050]

> philosophy

[Anonymous No.5256079]

>>5253427
>fucking
So you think that it is intelligent to cuss? That is very hilarious. I can tell you're just trying to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than putting on some giant pants yourself.