Many here ask why so many of us have a distaste for philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9989569]

Well, my main gripe is it just plain ignores reality. Yet, proclaims things about it. Take Sartre, and his proclaimation that there is no human nature, because there is no God (gods) to provide a conception of it. Well, that's just plain wrong. You can observe facets of human nature in infants as instinct. We have genetics to "provide a conception of it".
This is my gripe with philosophy, it ignores reality for its own headcanon.

[Anonymous No.9989571]

>>9989569
you didn't understand it

[Anonymous No.9989574]

>>9989571
No, it's just wrong. God or gods aren't required for human nature. End of.

[Anonymous No.9989584]

>>9989574
what is the ideal human?

[Anonymous No.9989585]

>>9989569

sci is full of spergy autist

[Anonymous No.9989590]

>>9989569
Stirner is unironically the best philosopher for scientists.

[Anonymous No.9989594]

>>9989584
That would obviously be subjective.

>>9989585
No, just being wrong, is just being wrong.

>>9989590
I rather agree with that, yes.

[Anonymous No.9989602]

>>9989594
no, not ideal as in ideal-for-you, ideal as in, having the essence of the human. What is it that all humans do that, if someone were not to do it would only be because they were not a human

[Anonymous No.9989603]

>>9989569
There would be no science without philosophy, plain and simple. The scientific method was developed in large part thanks to people like Aristotle and their drive to explain stuff with reason and not religion (also their obsession with mathematics and geometry helped a lot).

[Anonymous No.9989605]

diot savant
ˌiːdjəʊ saˈvɒ̃,ˌJdJəʊ/Submit
noun
a person who has a mental disability or learning difficulties but is extremely gifted in a particular way, such as the performing of feats of memory or calculation.
a person who is extremely unworldly but displays natural wisdom and insight.

there's your best case scenario

[Anonymous No.9989609]

>>9989584
A God.

[Anonymous No.9989611]

>>9989569
In science there are flatearthers.

[Anonymous No.9989613]

>>9989594
>science is always right
Now it's you, who ignore reality.

[Anonymous No.9989615]

>>9989609
shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.9989617]

>>9989569
I shit you not when I say that "philosophers" cucked most peoples wives here and thus have sealed their fate in the up and coming nuclear powered holocaust.

[Anonymous No.9989618]

>>9989613
The study of human instinct and genetics is a pretty well established field of science, you moron.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

[Anonymous No.9989619]

>>9989615
Search your feelings anon. You know it to be true.

[Anonymous No.9989629]

>>9989618
And everybody there are always right?

[Anonymous No.9989648]

>>9989618
>>9989629
more to the point, OP, do you have to obey your instincts?

[Anonymous No.9989685]

>>9989569
Science is a subset of philosophy, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.9989698]

>>9989603
There would also be no astronomy without astrology. Your point?

[Anonymous No.9989750]

>>9989685
A subset of math.

[Anonymous No.9989755]

>>9989569
Reality is based on evidence, which is based on sense-data, which is based on consciousness. Philosophy is the only science that doesn't assume anything.

[Anonymous No.9989764]

>>9989569
>doesnt get philosophy
>so it must be wrong

brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.9989846]

>>9989698
That's a poor example. The only thing astronomy and astrology have in common is doing fun stuff with stars, while philosophy was basically science itself right until the 18th century. And now it's preoccupied with things like epistemology and ethics, those are very important to modern science because they remind us what we should and should not be doing, and how we should do it.

[Anonymous No.9989854]

>>9989764
>uses big ambiguous words
>brainlets don't get it
>so it must be right

[Anonymous No.9989860]

>>9989854
you already demonstrated that you don't get sartre with your retarded op, so shut the fuck up, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9989936]

>>9989750

Math isn't science.

[Anonymous No.9989937]

>>9989936
You are right. Science is a subset of math.

[Anonymous No.9989942]

>>9989937
Math are just tools. Also, math is not absolute. There are infinite possible mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9989965]

>>9989574
Sartre is a literal retard. Sartre isn't three-thousand years of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9989972]

philosophy in a nutshell:
>we can't know nuffin man

now fuck off, it's not science or math

[Anonymous No.9990005]

>>9989972
Yeah because physics has a historic of making definitive theories. science is about, not giving absolute answares

[Anonymous No.9990018]

>>9990005
about predicting future behavior

[Anonymous No.9990176]

>>9989937

Not the same field.

[Anonymous No.9990191]

>>9989602
>What is it that all humans do that, if someone were not to do it would only be because they were not a human.
This is another problem with philosophy. The more you talk about nonsense or a hypothetical of a hypothetical, the less grounded you are in reality, and the easier it is to be skeptical of everything.

[Anonymous No.9990199]

>>9989569
Because this board is full of anglo barbarians with extremely poor education.

[Anonymous No.9990203]

>>9990191
There is non-sense about it. Did you even understand the question?

[Anonymous No.9990211]

>>9989942
>There are infinite possible mathematics.
Which is not a problem for math. You simply pick the axioms which are appropriate for whatever you're discussing.

[Anonymous No.9990215]

>>9990203
Let me re-phrase your question:
having the essence of the [table]. What is it that all [tables] do that, if [something] were not to do it would only be because they were not a [table].

[Anonymous No.9990226]

>>9989569

Your gripe is with Sartre, not philosophy. Sartre is shit

[Anonymous No.9990249]

>>9990215
That assumes it is possible to identify essence (which desu if you think its possible you don't unserstand language).

[Anonymous No.9990266]

>>9989569
I think the main problem with philosophy is that it wishes to explain the world but does not provide any actual evidence for it. Essentially, as long as philosophy does not look into the most current form of science and actually has a very nuianced understanding of it then nothing gets done and it is all conjecture. That and so many people go into philosophy to feel that they are "right" when in reality they should be trying to figure out what is actually "right"

[Anonymous No.9990274]

>>9990226
why? you also think essence preceeds existence like OP?

[Anonymous No.9990284]

>>9989569
yeah +1 for this.

what about this stupid concept of "utility"? utilitarians say we should base our ethics around, and thus do actual things in life, to maximize "utility". so this gets into "you have a choice between saving one person and saving two people, choose two people". it becomes a mathematical question. there is some numerical thing to consider with utility

"what is utility" you ask? "happiness" says the philosopher, "so the way to maximize utility is to maximize happiness for all people present and future"

"all future people?" you ask. "yes, you have to take into consideration even future generations, and there is wild uncertainty on those things"

so your numerical function is highly uncertain, great...

"anyhow, ignoring that whole issue of uncertanity, so then just being happy is more important than being free? like what if we chained everyone to a hospital bed and put them into a euphoric stupor with painkillers. then everybody would be happy right?" you ask

"oh no, now i define some new thing called higher and lower utility, that kind of happiness isn't real utility, only my definition of utility is real utility. like doing drugs is bad mmkay, so your example doesn't win because i say so"

THANKS PHILOSOPHERS

[Anonymous No.9990287]

>>9989569
Sartre was an ugly communist brainlet. And all his philosophy is born out of his physical inferiority

[Anonymous No.9990290]

>>9989942
>Math is not absolute.

Get out. You heretical bastard.

[Anonymous No.9990294]

>>9990176
Gravity is not the same field as magnetism yet they are harmonically interlinked at certain phase points.

[Anonymous No.9990333]

>>9990294

Thanks for the irrelevant info.

[Anonymous No.9990340]

>>9990249
This is ultimately a fundamental problem.
You divorce yourself from reality so much, you start to believe in unicorns.
It can easily lead to a person proclaiming tables do not exist, or that everything is a table, if they're skeptical enough.

[Anonymous No.9990365]

>>9990340
btw one way to get around this is plausibility.
This is where modal logic comes in (and occam's razor).

I'll give you an example.
Put your hand in front of your face. Look at it. Tell me what is more plausible: your hand existing, as is in front of your face connected to you, or a hypothetical of a hypothetical that says that your hand doesn't exist?

To put it another way, flat earthers have to go to such an extreme extent in order to try and stretch their skepticism over the fact that the earth is round - conspiratorial levels of skepticism.
What is more plausable: Their layers upon layers of conspiracy theory or the simple fact, based on evidence we see, that the earth is round?

[Anonymous No.9990379]

>>9990340
>tables do not exist
Tables don't exist anon, think about it. It's literally a social construct, an imagined category we use to help us have dinner

[Anonymous No.9990384]

>>9989585
the fact you put bill nye and the black science man on the same picture as einstein and heisenberg disgusts me

[Anonymous No.9990385]

Whata about logic?

[Anonymous No.9990386]

>>9990379
What makes social constructs less real than anything else?

[Anonymous No.9990393]

>>9990386
>What makes social constructs less real than anything else?
Excellent question! What is it that makes something 'real'? What does it mean to have 'being'?
Turns out philosophy is useful after all

[Anonymous No.9990403]

>>9990393
>Turns out philosophy is useful after all
Philosophy doesn't really answer anything though.
It's just an excuse to sit around on the porch and smoke weed.
It's too easy to jump into la-la land and divorce yourself from reality.

[Anonymous No.9990415]

>>9990393
turns out it's useful if you want your answer in the form of "there are many alternative philosophies on what is real, many of which disagree strongly with one another, and all are equally valid"

as is the case with everything in philosophy. you get all philosophies which say they're right and the other is dead wrong, but then the philosophers say "well you can believe what you want"

not helpful

[Anonymous No.9990421]

is string theory science or philosophy?
on the one hand, muh maths
on the other, it has never given provable results and adds absurd, far from observable reality concepts like extra dimensions

[Anonymous No.9990426]

>>9990421
proponents of string theory says that in principle it can make predictions, and maybe in 50 years they'll cook up something which has a chance of being possible to test eventually

so it skirts "pure math" by the skin of its teeth

[Anonymous No.9990428]

>>9990421
>on the one hand, muh maths
>on the other, it has never given provable results and adds absurd, far from observable reality concepts like extra dimensions
Every modern theory of physics says that our universe is a mathematical object, and that we are substructures of that object. Theories differ only with regard to which mathematical object we happen to be a part of.

[Anonymous No.9990438]

>>9990421
It’s a string hypothesis and has yet to be substantiated. Don’t mock science by calling it a theory. It’s a hypothesis, and will remain one until it provides useful results.

[Anonymous No.9990439]

>>9990428
false. science is not in the business of that kind of ontology/metaphysics.

what physics says is "we have mathematical models, some of which are big frameworks of things that we elevate to the title of 'theory', and they are in the language of mathematics. these mathematical theories DESCRIBE observations."

we don't claim that the theory is the universe, any more that cartographers claim that the map is the territory

[Anonymous No.9990443]

>>9990415
>>9990403
>Philosophy doesn't really answer anything though.
>not helpful
What is helpful? What can science answer?
Should we wage aggressive war on our rival nations? Should women be the property of their husbands? What's the best Beatles album?*
These questions are outside the scope of empirical science. But it might be helpful to ask them, even if we can't get definitve answers. Why have you got such a hardon for definitive answers? Quantum physics doesn't have definitive answers, I don't hear you moaning about that.

>*no, no and 'A Hard Days Night'

[Anonymous No.9990451]

>>9990443
Science has enabled us to more efficiently produce many kinds of resources and better our welfare. That’s useful.

[Anonymous No.9990453]

>>9990439
>"mathematical theories DESCRIBE observations."
No. The problem with this perspective is that nobody has the slightest idea how to construct a useful physical theory along those lines. It’s not just that science rejects all the alternatives; it’s that no scientist has even been able to imagine a useful alternative.

[Anonymous No.9990455]

>>9990443
quantum physics does have definitive answers, just that these answers are probabilities instead of single outcomes

[Anonymous No.9990457]

>>9989569
philosophy gives you something to think about while giving that necessary kick to certain ideas, while science verifies them.

[Anonymous No.9990458]

>>9990453
It would only make sense that mathematics would describe reality in a quantized universe.

[Anonymous No.9990459]

>>9990439
>the map is the territory
The territory IS a mathematical structure.
The theory is the map.

[Anonymous No.9990461]

>>9990459
that’s just like, uh, your philosophical opinion, man

pass the bong btw

[Anonymous No.9990462]

>>9989569
"We" hate it, for the most part because of dealing with cringy pseuds in academia who delude themselves into thinking that they are the only "thinking" men, and everyone around them are sheep. They also talk out of their ass of shit they know nothing about, and babble incoherently about shit that is trivial, unanswerable or superficial. Philosophy clearly is important as it's concern are broad and deep, but it's still it's own niche with it's own limitations and obviously isn't the only subject that lets people discuss in an sincere and rigorous way.

[Anonymous No.9990464]

>>9990451
And political philosophy is the reason you aren't a slave of your God-Emperor. Was that useful? You can't empirically prove that freedom and democracy are better than feudal tyranny, but aren't you glad people asked these questions that don't have any reasl answers. Ethical philosophy is the reason we have social order and a justice system rather than rule by the man with the biggest fists, was that useful?
Not even getting into 'how to define useful'

[Anonymous No.9990468]

>>9990464
You actually could, though. Just study the welfare of autocratic societies compared to democratized ones.

[Anonymous No.9990473]

>>9990468
>welfare
I'm the God-Emperor, and I define 'welfare' as 'the long continuing of my reign of terror'. I guess you could get a different definition of 'welfare', but dude, wouldn't that be...philosphy.

[Anonymous No.9990474]

>>9990468
but why is high welfare objectively better than lower?

pass the bong brotha, im going for another toke

[Anonymous No.9990479]

>>9990464
Lol no, political philosophy describes the structures human create, but no fucking academic has ever done more than a descriptive job. Marx isn't the reason some societies got communist, it obviously influenced the structure of certain goverments, but the dissatisfaction of the masses rose independent of what the intellectual circles of the time wrote.

[Anonymous No.9990484]

>>9990479
So the French Revolution wasn't influenced by Rousseau and the Enlightenment in any way? Or the Russian Revolution by Marx? Bold opinion

[Anonymous No.9990487]

>>9990468
>>9990464
Arrow's impossibility theorem, the general possibility theorem or Arrow's paradox is an impossibility theorem stating that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency and independence of irrelevant alternatives.
Arrow's theorem states a deterministic preferential voting mechanism—that is, one where a preference order is the only information in a vote, and any possible set of votes gives a unique result—cannot comply with all of the conditions given above simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.9990497]

>>9990487
That's great anon, back to feudalism it is then, you've proven democracy sucks. Dibs on being King

[Anonymous No.9990501]

>>9990474
>but why is high welfare objectively better than lower?
because people would prefer to not die of black lung.

[Anonymous No.9990506]

>>9990474
The entire point of having societies is to better our welfare above that of Homo erectus.

[Anonymous No.9990509]

>>9990501
but has life an objective value higher than no life if we're just a pile of self replicating molecules on a tiny rock in space?

fuck the bong give me the black tar heroin

[Anonymous No.9990519]

>>9990509
Objective value doesn’t exist. We just like living.

[Anonymous No.9990526]

Posts a continental existentialist---complains that they just talk about the conditions of their life from their experience......read fucking Kuhn dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9990532]

>>9990519
>We just like living
except suicidal people
but they don't not like it for long

[Anonymous No.9990538]

>>9990509
>objective value
You keep using this.
It's all relative: people weigh costs to benefits.
Most people prefer to not die to black lung, as long as its profitable to do so.
Most people would like it if we didn't die of cancer, as long as its profitable to do so.

[Anonymous No.9990542]

>>9990532
They can kill themselves if they want. Not my problem.

[Anonymous No.9990546]

>>9990509
Why bother arguing? Why struggle to come up with a definition for some vaguely imagined notion of “physical existence”? Ockham’s Razor cautions us not to burden ourselves with unnecessary metaphysical baggage. There are mathematical objects. Some have self-aware substructures. Our universe is one of those. The business of science is to figure out which one. What more needs to be said?

[Anonymous No.9990553]

>>9989569
Logical Positivism is a philosophical position too, you can find authors which argue positions almost identical to your own. If you read into them to strengthen your views, however, you should also be intellectually honest and do some serious readings into the objections of it as well, as it is because of those objections that LP is the closest thing to a "debunked" philosophical position today.
>>9989942
>Math is just a tool
For what? Science? If so, you are only looking at applied mathematics, which is too narrow of a mindset. Unless your point is that all disciplines and studies only exist as "tools" in that they are only meant to be applied and reach conclusions, otherwise it is then perfectly reasonable to describe Mathematics as an end of itself
>Math is not absolute
In what system? If you mean (description of)
the universe, then the description of nature using math is only as good as we can observe it, yes. However, just as with the point above, this is only looking at math as it is applied to natural observation. In a pure system of axioms and deductions, the only thing that can prove that system to not be "absolute" is if that system is inconsistent. I could be misunderstanding what you mean by absolute, in which case it is up to you to clarify
>There are infinite possible mathematics
Sure, I guess so

[Anonymous No.9990556]

>>9990191
Philosophers are necessary for scientists to get anywhere. There’s a reason they’re the first in any field.

[Anonymous No.9990561]

>>9990506
>>9990519
>>9990538
>>9990542
>>9990546
>Not my problem
>The entire point of having societies
>Objective value doesn’t exist.
>It's all relative
>Ockham’s Razor cautions us not to burden ourselves with unnecessary metaphysical baggage
Wow, it turns out /sci/ likes doing philosophy after all

[Anonymous No.9990563]

>>9989569
Human nature is a meme created by XVII century religious guys trying to do what Newton did with the study in nature but with human behavior, it doesnt work, it doesnt explain the diverse way people lived in different cultures, because the social norms are arbitrary and can be whatever the fuck we want them to be, literally everything is a social construct, usually created by the religion of the time.

[Anonymous No.9990569]

>>9990561
Unfailingly people who say they hate philosophy just have implicitly stupid philosophies.

[Anonymous No.9990573]

>>9990553
>LP is the closest thing to a "debunked" philosophical position today.
oh look. another "u cant no nuthin" guy.

[Anonymous No.9990582]

>>9990563
>>9990569
no. what is the point of philosophy, if its so easy to dive into the outlandish and divorce yourself from reality.
its useless to create hypotheticals of hypotheticals BECAUSE it divorces you from what you are ACTUALLY talking about.
you become hyper-skeptical of everything, and your ideas become useless.

[Anonymous No.9990586]

Daily reminder that math is literally a branch of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9990587]

hey brahs what if...
*bubble bubble*
it’s like GOD, man??
*COUGH COUGH COUGH*

[Anonymous No.9990598]

>>9990473
Touché. Keep your ethics and let the big boy scientists handle the rest

[Anonymous No.9990627]

>>9990598

[Anonymous No.9990632]

>>9990582
Or human thought have limits and philosophy studies those limits, tough luck buddy, science will not give you all the answers

[Anonymous No.9990638]

>>9989569
>This is my gripe with philosophy, it ignores reality for its own headcanon.
Do you have a gripe with mathematics too? Axioms are headcanon.

[Anonymous No.9990640]

>>9990632
yeah, it can only give you answers that correspond to real "things" in the "universe"... totally useless compared to the answers about all the imaginary stuff out there!

[Anonymous No.9990677]

>>9990484
It influenced the elite in how they constructed institutions and legals systems afterwards, but it didn't really changed the mind of some poor peasant who is dying of hunger. It's a cause and effect thing what I'm saying, and generally that movements require a movement of masses and a lot of the time, these masses aren't really following some fundamental principle, but politics and propaganda. Obviously not saying there are no good, concrete reasons to follow a revolution, but the inspiration seems to come from the symptoms of the time and context, and not really the intellectual circles. You could say that the people who manufacture these all come from these circles and are usually influenced by the intellectual discussion, but still, if Russia managed to industrialize and grow as a western economy, I think the development of the nation would me much more different.

[Anonymous No.9990700]

The value of philosophy is simple. You read all of it, judge it for yourself, and take from it what you find valuable. That's it. Why does that cause so much controversy?

[Anonymous No.9990711]

>>9990700
well, wittgenstein went further -- he said that you do pure philosophy (as opposed to science) as a "spiel" or basically a game/exercise, but then he says, it's like a ladder you climb up, but once you've climbed up the latter, you throw the latter away

so my take is that pure philosophy is something where you do it, it makes your thought process stronger and more clear, but the ultimate takeaway is that you take nothing away from it. you throw it away

[Anonymous No.9990712]

>>9990677
Dude you've literally just paraphrased the classical Marxist position on social change and why it happens. Are you a masterful ruseman or did you not realise?

[Anonymous No.9990736]

>>9990712
No? The idea that the underprivileged is the motor of change is Marxist, the common sense reasoning that you need a bigger a stronger army to win anything is just that, common sense. What I'm saying is that a lot of people say that "marx is the reason communist exists in russia" is bullshit, because the symptoms of the peasants and workers are not up to discussion, they were on a really shitty situation. There were plenty of countries that had socialists reforms by that time, and social revolutions were happening even in America. The point is that, the influence of political philosophy seems to be descriptive, but not predictive, nor it produces serious changes. It's like saying that without Newton, there would be no classical mechanics, while it was clear plenty of academics were developing similar ideas, and it would seem ridiculous some equivalent system wouldn't come to be he didn't exist. Marx was german, but why did all communist parties failed here? There were plenty of russian intellectuals that opposed communism, why it succeeded there?

[Anonymous No.9990744]

>>9990736
To be specific, the idea is not just underprivileged, but those who are underprivileged and are the necessary tools of production, but in any conflict of change, the only tools of production is having a bigger and better army, or plenty of support.

[Anonymous No.9990784]

>>9990711
so it's just a complex way of playing dr kawashima's brain training?
what's all the fuss about then

[Anonymous No.9990815]

>>9990736
>The point is that, the influence of political philosophy seems to be descriptive, but not predictive, nor it produces serious changes.
But we know the leaders of the Russian Revolution were directly influenced by Marx, like the leaders of the French Revolution were directly influenced by Rousseau etc, and the American founding fathers were directly influenced by Paine etc. If 'inspiring a bunch of people to otherthrow the existing social order and replace it with one directly influenced by your ideas' isn't 'producing serious change' what is? Where did Marxism come from if not from Marx?

[Anonymous No.9990829]

>>9990632
>Or human thought have limits
incorrect. there is nothing out "there" which says this.
all arguments based on this idea, that human thought has limits, are fundamentally based on an argument which doesn't actually understand what the actual argument was actually talking about.
for example, stupid people thought godel's incompleteness theorem was saying something about the limits to human knowledge, when all it's talking about is the limits to axioms associated to mathematics.
Hence the constant blather that goes on in philosophy. Most don't actually understand what they're even talking about.

[Anonymous No.9990835]

>>9990829
contd.
Philosophers end up asking stupid questions.
Another example is the Heisenberg principle, and how stupid people think this holds some grounds to the limits of human knowledge.
"Philosophers" end up asking stupid questions like, "Where is the electron?" When that is like asking the question, "What is the electron's favorite movie?"
These idiots don't even know what the principle is talking about, since they're so far up in the clouds.

[Anonymous No.9990846]

>>9990266
>I think the main problem with philosophy is that it wishes to explain the world but does not provide any actual evidence for it.
What philosophy tries to explain generally isn't something that there can be evidence for (at least, evidence in the "scientific" sense).
What does and does not count as evidence, for instance, is itself a philosophical (epistemological) question; it can't be proven with evidence because you need criteria for what counts as evidence before you can accept anything as evidence. Nevertheless, if we want to do proper science we need to have some answer for that question, and that's where philosophy comes in.

[Anonymous No.9990857]

>>9990815
Yes they were influenced by these actors, but that doesn't, in any sense, mean that people at the time weren't "aware" of the problems. Also, their influence really comes from a good exposition of the issues, but no one you mentioned actually adhered to what Marx, Rousseau and Paine wanted. The ones who inspired the change were the ones who amassed people, disrupted the status quo, organized the armies. Seems a bit much to say that here the actors of change are the political philosophers. People get inspiration from plenty of sources, but the actions come from people actually doing shit and not wasting time in the intricate and abstract details of a philosophical discussion. I mean, there was some bullshit reason why plenty of communist saw the rise of many contemporary physics theories as a direct opposition to materialism, it still didn't stopped them from producing scientists who made fundamental contributions to these areas. Maybe I have some traits of a societal determinism that makes me see shit like "it is like it is and there is no point of talking what could be", but the only space I see from that view is to investigate what causes change, and the intellectual class seems to function in a way that is not readily behind these changes. As you say, they can inspire and explain a lot of shit in a clear way, but considering how almost nothing functions "as it should" that the inspiration doesn't really seem to fundamentally mold these actors. Why is it that france continued with empires if the ideas of a burgeois revolutions were the ones that massively influenced the changes?

[Anonymous No.9990876]

this thread has been overtaken by philosophyfags

please, move to >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.9990881]

>>9990857
>Seems a bit much to say that here the actors of change are the political philosophers
Not saying that. Saying political philosphers are *influencers* of social change. For example, nobody would have considered themselves equal to the king if someone hadn't sat down and thought about it and written about equality. It's not a concept inherent in the human brain, it had to be invented.
>The ones who inspired the change were the ones who amassed people, disrupted the status quo, organized the armies
In a way, but how do these people choose what direction to take? The French Revolution could have merely replaced the monarch with a slightly less of an asshole monarch, without making any changes to the social structure. (as happened in Britain a few times). Instead they replaced the whole aristocracy. The Russians could have replaced the Tsar with bourgeios democracy as happened in most other European countries (and USA). Instead they go communist.
If I order my slave Tyrone to fuck my wife, yes it's Tyrone who does the fucking, but it's me who made it happen.
>Why is it that france continued with empires if the ideas of a burgeois revolutions were the ones that massively influenced the changes?
There's a huge amount of literature on this very topic, detailing how the Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte stuff was only considered to apply to white people

[Anonymous No.9990883]

>>9990876
t. scientistic redditor

[Anonymous No.9990889]

>>9990640
>only things that we observe can exist
I guess atoms began to exist when we found them, anything before you would have told to "atomists" they are "useless philosophers"

>>9990829
Human thought haves limits, as it only can talk about what can experience. Mathematics its limited because anything that falls out of the axioms is not considered and cant be mathematic, but that doesnt mean something that doesnt follow the mathematical axioms does not exist in universe.

[Anonymous No.9990894]

>>9990876
>philosophyfags
>not philosophags

[Anonymous No.9990900]

>>9990876
>Thinks /sciphi/ is bad
this thread has been overtaken by faggotry

please, move to >>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.9990925]

>>9990889
>Mathematics its limited
>anything that falls out of the axioms is not considered and cant be mathematics.
This is wrong, and is a confusion between what is a mathematical structure, and what is the axioms which accompany it.
See >>9990459
Axioms can be whatever is needed to EXPLAIN the mathematical structure.
Your fundamental position, by very definition, is to say silly things like, "Evaporation doesn't exist. After all, it's nothing but a futile attempt to explain a complex process of interacting water and air molecules."
Or in terms of mathematics, "Large numbers don't exist. After all, we don't have any experience in dealing with large numbers, so how can we know if they are consistent? If they are inconsistent, then they cannot be true, and we certainly cannot be confident they even exist at all."
There is a whole HOST of silly outcomes.

[Anonymous No.9990941]

>>9990925
>Axioms can be whatever is needed to EXPLAIN the mathematical structure.

Lmao you dont discover mathematical structures. From the axioms you deduce theorems that create the structures, they are defined, invented not discovered. You could change axioms to create new shit if it haves interesting properties and its self consistent though

[Anonymous No.9990947]

>>9990941
>Lmao you dont discover math, it's invented.
This is wrong.
There are such things as true statements.
"True" does not mean "provable."
For something to be true in arithmetic, it must be about something, and that something is the system of natural numbers. Moreover, these statements were true long before anybody thought about them, and would be true whether anybody every thought about them or not.

[Anonymous No.9990953]

>>9990941
imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.9990955]

>>9990947
>For something to be true in arithmetic, it must be about something, and that something is the system of natural numbers.

System that is created from the axioms of natural numbers which must be accepted to be true in order to continue

>these statements were true long before anybody thought about them
Only if you accept the axioms, which you cant prove

[Anonymous No.9990956]

>integer harmonics don't exist in nature we made them up
lol

[Anonymous No.9990957]

>>9989569
this thread is so brainlet im really disappointed in /sci/ this kind of proves /lit/ is smarter and you don’t need high iq to do calculus or code

[Anonymous No.9990966]

>>9990955
>System that is created from the axioms of natural numbers which must be accepted to be true in order to continue
>Only if you accept the axioms, which you cant prove
Yes. Exactly. There is a whole breadth of literature out there, all about true mathematical statements which cannot be proven. One such is called Ramsey theory.

I'll give you an example: One fundamental question Frank Ramsey made was, "We know that, within a party of 6 individuals, there must be at least 3 friends, or 3 non-friends. We can prove this. Yet what is the minimum amount of people needed at a party to have at least 4 friends, or 4 non-friends?"
He wasn't able to give an answer, but he was able to show that an answer exists. This is a question we know was true, but not provable.

[Anonymous No.9990969]

>>9990966
cont'd.
to put it simply, when you add up a column of numbers twice and get two different answers, I hope you believe you've made a mistake, and not that suddenly arithmetic is inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.9990973]

>>9990969
What if I define a system of numbers where adding up a column of numbers twice can output two different values?

[Anonymous No.9990975]

>>9989569
Pretty sure the first three American pragmatists—James, Dewey, and Pierce—didn’t.

[Anonymous No.9990978]

>>9990973
What useful/interesting shit would you do with such system

[Anonymous No.9990987]

>>9990978
Who cares, the usefulness of such system of numbers is irrelevant to this conversation.

[Anonymous No.9991009]

>>9990987
Well go ahead and create your useless nu-math u faggot

[Anonymous No.9991015]

>>9991009
t. low iq physics/engineering undergrad who thinks that math must have real world applications to be interesting

[Anonymous No.9991016]

>>9990973
No mathematician would consider rejecting a proof just because it relies on new axiomatic foundations. That’s because mathematicians (or at least the sort of mathematicians who study arithmetic) don’t particularly care about axioms; they care about truth.
Axiomatic systems are investigative tools, which we are free to jettison when better tools come along. What really matters is the fundamental object of study, whether it’s the system of natural numbers or the planet Jupiter or a rock.
Mathematicians care about what’s true, not about what’s provable; if a truth isn’t provable, we’re fine with changing the rules of the game to make it provable.
The goal is to understand the natural numbers, and mathematicians pursue that goal by any means necessary.
in other words, see >>9990978

[Anonymous No.9991025]

>>9991016
i don't follow this

how do mathematicians have a concept of "truth" aside from things that follow from the axioms and rules of inference? are you saying that they are really taking inspiration from science and just refusing to allow empirical facts from entering their system?

i mean then why is the goldbach conjecture a thing people worry about? it's empirically true to any scientist

[Anonymous No.9991030]

>>9991016
>truth
How do you even prove that something is true if not through logical means?
>What really matters is the fundamental object of study, whether it’s the system of natural numbers or the planet Jupiter or a rock.
Jesus christ fuck off back to the popsci shithole you came from.

[Anonymous No.9991033]

>>9989569
You're literally just afraid of ideas. It's called low openness.

[Anonymous No.9991037]

>>9989569
>tfw getting my PhD in atmos science
>on track for academia position since while demand for atmospheric modeling expertise is relatively high, the field as a whole isn't exactly overflowing with people who can into math
>tfw subjective idealist who hates empiricism
>surrounded by materialist objectivists
It's a novel sort of feel

[Anonymous No.9991039]

>>9991037
oh great, an idealist who works in the most politically charged field of science

anon, i wish you would doxx yourself so that anytime i see any articles by you, i know it has some hidden agenda

[Anonymous No.9991040]

>>9990957
couldn't agree more. I hate that I have to go there as a STEMfag just to talk to smart people.

[Anonymous No.9991043]

>>9991037
You should kill yourself. Idealism is retarded.

[Anonymous No.9991047]

>>9991040
to be clear i wasn’t affirming philosophy im just disgusted with how low quality the rebuttals are. this is embarrassing, and again shows most STEMfags are not particularly high iq or competent outside of following rote instruction.

[Anonymous No.9991048]

>>9991039
If you're assuming that I'm some sort of environmentalist you couldn't be more wrong. Global warming is real but it's highly exaggerated in its public presentation, mainly to fund grants to second tier scientists. My idealism has nothing to do with that and frankly I don't have strong opinions either way. It's more to do with mind/matter dualism. I have a strong suspicion that even so called objective reality is highly dependent on the state of your own subjective consciousness.

[Anonymous No.9991049]

>>9991048
kys retard

[Anonymous No.9991051]

>>9991049
no

[Anonymous No.9991052]

>>9991051
then get the fuck out of atmos sci you fucking nigger faggot insect

[Anonymous No.9991054]

>>9991048
You legitimately have a mental illness if you think idealism makes sense.

[Anonymous No.9991055]

>>9991047
everyone has a philosophy even if they don't call it philosophy. Just to be clear, by philosophy I mean some sort of operational metaphysics. It's clear just by the last few replies to my posts that people here don't even know what simple terms like "idealism" mean.

[Anonymous No.9991056]

>>9991048
fair. i wouldn't call this "idealism" because there is no "ideology" in mind/matter dualism that makes outlandish nonscientific claims, as far as i can tell.

there are famous physicists who were solipsists, which is pretty bizarre, but fine. contrast this with the "einstein is wrong because muh jooz" ideologues

[Anonymous No.9991057]

>>9990957
teslaniggers are killing this board

[Anonymous No.9991058]

>>9991056
Idealism != ideology

[Anonymous No.9991061]

>>9991052
fuck you, idealism is the key to breaking the two week Lorentz barrier for weather prediction. I don't know how yet but it'll happen and you'll be thankful when I save your house from a tornado or some shit.

[Anonymous No.9991063]

>Professor says chairs don't exist but then complains to the dean and gets me expelled when I throw a chair at him.
Fucking philosofags amirite?

[Anonymous No.9991071]

oh for fucks sake, retards.
Ideology is the assumption mind is primary, matter is secondary.

Materialim is the assumption that matter is primary, and mind is secondary.

Dualism is the assumption that there are properties unique to mind and matter which makes them distinct from each other.

For example, materialism asserts that the mental state "pain" is derived from something firing off in your brain.

Idealism is vice-versa.

Dualism is to say there are distinct aspects to "pain" which cannot be characterized by simply explaining it as a physical thing firing off in your brain, and there are distinct aspects to a physical thing firing off in your brain which are separate to a "pain" response.

[Anonymous No.9991081]

>>9991071
thanks for this. I'd also highly recommend people here look into Henri Bergson since he takes a pretty /sci approach to bridging the gap between materialism and idealism through the use of what he calls images.

[Anonymous No.9991085]

>>9991071
and neutral monism is to say there is a third, external "thing" which dictates both mind and matter.

[Anonymous No.9991088]

>>9991071
>>9991085
and ijustmadethisup is a new philosophy where free will is an emergent phenomenon of the material universe that grands true free will to conscious beings within the material universe

[Anonymous No.9991093]

>>9991088
ps, actually i didn't, i stole it from Henry Stapp's book, who explains it in terms of the quantum zeno paradox and decoherence, but i don't know if anybody's named it yet

[Anonymous No.9991099]

>>9991071
idealism is like a marine or navy seal pushing through the pain, because he refuses to quit or "acknowledge" that pain.

[Anonymous No.9991108]

>>9990947
There is coherent truth which is about invented structures, and consistent truth (ie consistent with human experience) which is what you are talking about. The problem with the latter is that it's not permanent and only lasts as long as humans decide to limit themselves to frameworks and problems suited to a particular truth. Example being newtonian physics and the days of weather forecasting before consideration of stratospheric dynamics. In each case, ignoring conditions outside of some boundary allows a model to remain consistant with reality, but once it's integrated with another element it ceases to be "truth". This is the case with materialism/idealism. There are inconsistances which we ignore because we can't yet integrate qualia with material dynamics.

[Anonymous No.9991120]

>>9989846
>philosophy was basically science itself right until the 18th century
This has no bearing on the importance of philosophy now, just like astrology being able to describe the movement of celestial bodies in sumerian times has no bearing on the importance of astrology now. If philosophy (astrology) wants to stick around, then it'll have to do it by other merits because it's been superceded as a tool to describe reality (the movement of celestial bodies). I'm not saying philosophy is useless now, just that your argument is wrong.
>now it's preoccupied with things like epistemology and ethics, those are very important
You should have led with that.

[Anonymous No.9991947]

>>9991055
yes, the correct one is materialism; and once this is accepted the need for metaphysics vanishes until we begin discussing genesis.
>>9991057
its a combination of /pol/ laymen, eng niggers, cs tards and reddit fags getting upset at /pol/nigging; just ban anything that isn’t referencing technical concepts or theory and create generals for eng and cs discussion, now you’ve solved the problem
>>9991061
I live near the mountains anon, the only storms that ravage my polity are wind storms which were often even more violent a few hundred years ago when the weather was warmer. Have fun with your psychodrama and belief you don’t vanish the moment your frontal lobe stops functioning. I was an idealist too for years.

[Anonymous No.9991996]

>>9991108
Qualia is just shape, you can as the same question about how a ball is round and what its shape consists of.

[Anonymous No.9992007]

>>9991120
Importance is a social construct. People lived fine without iPhone.

[Anonymous No.9992059]

What philosophers [at least the good ones] try to do is link concepts that on the surface appear subjective, to an objective way of describing reality.

Things like the way that we use language and the relationship between internal monologue and mouth noises
Things like wondering what possible structure that exists in space could explain Qualia
etc, etc

Philosophical thought is driven by curiosity and a seeking of truth, just the same as scientific endeavours. It's an application of logic to ideas, and following the threads of an idea to its logical conclusion about what they would mean for reality at large, if such an idea were an objective representation.

Think of it, /sci/, as an experiment with an idea, to see what the idea actually means.

[Anonymous No.9992062]

>>9990384
Wow that pic really went right over your head didn't it? The whole point is that it's comparing real scientists' views of philosophy with the modern science spokesmen who barely know what they're talking about. The ones on the left, nobel laureates, admire philosophy, while the psuedo-intellectuals on the right despise it.

[Anonymous No.9992082]

>>9991947
>i was totally wrong before but now i'm totally right!
more likely you simply transitioned over to a different flavor of wrong. I mean, is this not also you, in a way, if not literally?
>>9991996