Too many philosocucks here

[Anonymous No.10418436]

Science is science and asking why or how we exist is not science.

[Anonymous No.10418440]

/sci/let cope

[Anonymous No.10418543]

>>10418440
your entire joke field can be summarized as:
>No what he had meant was
No what he had meant was
>No what he had meant was
No what he had meant was
>No what he had meant was
No what he had meant was
>No what he had meant was
No what he had meant was

[Anonymous No.10418751]

>>10418436
wrong. "why" is philosophy, "how" is science.

[Anonymous No.10418762]

>>10418751
wrong. "what" is philosophy, "who" is science. "how" dare you

[Anonymous No.10418770]

>>10418436
Empiricism is a subtype of philosophy and is a misguided effort to direct philosophy of knowledge farther from its entire scope of effect. What you call science is a subtier of logical analisis that is not even compatible with current day metaphysics since post-modernism. Pathetic at best.

[Anonymous No.10418780]

>>10418543
>The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
IT'S OVER PHILOSOPHERS, DONE, REMEMBER TO TURN OFF THE LIGHTS

[Anonymous No.10418792]

>>10418436
>posting a pseud with your anti-philosophy screed

[Anonymous No.10419046]

Science is just another word for natural philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10419067]

Arguing over which of the two factions concerns itself with the 'how' or the 'why' does nothing to rebut OP's statement. In fact, I believe OP's statement to be entirely correct and I think a lot of scholars would agree. I do want to point out though that the literal question of why or how we exist is a question that can be answered by science... but I don't think that's what OP is talking about. Why do we exist as a species? Natural selection and evolution! How do we exist? A bunch of shit in the right place at the right time.

OP's statement put simply (and more concisely): Concern with existence is not a concern with facts //about// human beings, hence it is not science.

It isn't even philosophy in the traditional sense of the discipline because questions of an //individual's// existence are obviously not in the business of devising general truths about human nature.

[Anonymous No.10419089]

>>10419067
OPs proposition is phrased imprecisely. the literal question "why do we exist" allows for both a philosophical and an empirical answer. if you want a precise answer, phrase your question accordingly.

>OP's statement put simply (and more concisely)
this is your own conjecture, and it's anything but more concise.

[Anonymous No.10419104]

>>10418543
>Having the need to accurately represent the premise of the Argument so that it is sound and not a generalisation .
>Reeeeeeeeee I need to learn bug words and shiet .

[Anonymous No.10419108]

>>10418762
>breakthrough kek

[Anonymous No.10419114]

>>10419046
Don't anger the priests of Science, this is heresy.

[sage goes in all fields No.10419118]

epistemology is interesting on its own right, also pic related.

[Anonymous No.10419128]

>>10419118
>Their is no shuch thign as phrilosofey-bree scibence, just scibence that have bean codnructed blithout any cronsiderbation of its blunderlying phrilosobopical ass-umptions.
--Danbiel Denbet. :-DDDD

[Anonymous No.10419133]

>>10419128
faggot

[Anonymous No.10419152]

>>10418436
Science would exist without asking the big questions. Science is the pursuit of the answer to such questions.

[Anonymous No.10419171]

[Anonymous No.10419173]

>>10418436
I think Medicine and Biology are sciences, and are kinda related to how we live. If you can make a reproducable experiment, it is a science.

[Anonymous No.10419207]

>>10419089
>OPs proposition is phrased imprecisely. the literal question "why do we exist" allows for both a philosophical and an empirical answer. if you want a precise answer, phrase your question accordingly.

I think I agree with you insofar as I understand what you've said. I didn't say it is a question exclusively answerable by science, I only point out that it can be answered by science.

>this is your own conjecture, and it's anything but more concise.
Point taken

[Anonymous No.10419233]

>>10418751
That's a major oversimplification. Some fields of philosophy deal with "how", like "how do we know what's true?" or "how do we behave morally?". Physics is currently attempting to answer the same questions philosophers have been asking for millennia.

There actually shouldn't be a difference between philosophy and science. All scientists should have graduate degrees in philosophy and all philosophers should have graduate degrees in science.

[Anonymous No.10419280]

>>10419233
yes, that's fair. i didn't feel compelled to be any less simplistic than OP was.

[Anonymous No.10419314]

>>10418436
I really like Jordan but every time he talks about religion he gets so vague and just sounds retarded outside of that field he is a fucking genius

[Anonymous No.10419317]

>"why?" or "how?" isn't science
what?

[Anonymous No.10419349]

The Munchausen Trilemna negates all of science.

[Anonymous No.10419452]

>>10418436
who invented science as a separate study again? oh...

[Anonymous No.10419461]

>>10419128
kekd. Anything Spurdo would say can be disqualified

[Anonymous No.10419640]

>>10419104
>having to remain consistent, and not create a load of bullshit nothing statements strung together, harms my very core
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>10418780
the only good philosophers are those who actually study the fields they "philosophize". Too many "philosophers" make so much retarded nonsense and blather over things they simply do not understand. Fix your shit, before thinking you have any authority on the subject you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.10419644]

>>10418436
Everything is science

[Anonymous No.10419647]

>>10419640
t. too dense to read hegel

[Anonymous No.10419654]

>>10418770
Name an agreed upon result in philosophy or something which philosophy has predicted lmfao

[Anonymous No.10419662]

>>10419654
>an agreed upon result in philosophy
the scientific method

[Anonymous No.10419673]

>>10419662
lmfao no.

[Anonymous No.10419682]

>>10419673
>what is epistemology
not an argument

[Anonymous No.10419683]

>>10418436
philosophy is above all science , the mother of all fields, without philosophy there is no science.

[Anonymous No.10419688]

>>10418762
>(((who)))

[Anonymous No.10419694]

>>10419647
why do these threads always end up with a bunch of failing sophomores like you spouting, "u cant no nuffin."

[Anonymous No.10419704]

>>10419694
the virgin sokal
>shopped into a picture of cookie-cutter roasties
>horrible sense of fashion
>dopey smile

the chad zizek
>actually marries a model
>sharp-as-can-be suit
>face marked with the terrible truth of, *sniff*, ideology, and so on

[Anonymous No.10419706]

>>10419683
>>10419683
>philosophy is above all science

If by "above" you mean: more sloppy in methods, yeah I guess.

In no other field you can just argue for something with words being your only evidence.

[Anonymous No.10419784]

>>10419706
nuh uh, can’t know nuffin, checkmate brainlet

[Anonymous No.10419883]

>>10419654
That mathematics is the universal language because it is both syntax and semantics

[Anonymous No.10419899]

>>10419883
Its not a language though. You can't communicate only with math, your thoughts can't be expressed in math. There's no extemporizing in math, it's all logically cohesive. Every response in the "math language" is preordained.

[Anonymous No.10420007]

>>10419706
>In no other field you can just argue for something with words being your only evidence.
literally maths

[Anonymous No.10420032]

>>10419899
Everything that you see around you is math

[Anonymous No.10420033]

>>10420032
But it's science

[Anonymous No.10420661]

When you make a low effort post to test if you got banned or a thread closed and its this popular, and you knew it would be.

[Anonymous No.10420693]

>>10420661
you can test whether you're banned on 4chan without posting though

but I'm too lazy too so I'm posting there to check, as somebody wanted to ban "can't build muscle" anon (i.e. me)

[Anonymous No.10420734]

>>10420693
To be fair it was really something on my mind which is why it came up when I needed something quick. I think some people are right that its not phrased so clearly. People more thoughtful participated so that's cool.

[Anonymous No.10420776]

>>10419640
Maybe if you read English meme Philosophers like hume or Locke then yes those guys can write a while book and then say "well actually I think it's all bullshit because....." But if you read someone good like Leibniz , Descartes ,Kant ,Hegel or even scholastics and plato that shit is very thorough and it needs to define its words to be accurate and correct just to avoid the fallacy of equivacation .

Now the "nothing statements" are actually infinitely more founded on then Scientific statements and laws .I'm more sure in the law of non contradiction or the law of the undestributed middle then you can ever in principle be about anything in the real world . Because before you get to doing shit in the real world you need to prove that shit exists .

[Anonymous No.10420798]

>>10419654
Here is a list of laws on which all philosophers agree on to allow them to work .

Law of identity
Indescernibility of identicals
Law of now contradiction
Law of the undestributed middle
Logical statements like modus tollens or reduction an absurdum .
Possible world semantics
(Mostly people agree ) the principle of sufficient reason " all which exists has ab explanation for its existence either in a external being or in its own neccessaty
Next people also agree to objections to Arguments like the fallacies and non sequitors .

But more over this whole
>Philosophy is bad because muh no result

Is just a appeal to consequences you say that hey look at science ,results and shiet and then imply that means that science can get to the truth but this is just week ass pragmatism which even the Scientific method denounces .

Before you can do science properly you need to
Solve solipcism
Stop working of flawed induction
Prove that the universe works the same in all places not just in the earth and observable universe
Find a reason to do science independent of benefits ( because it's possible that the truth is unbenefitial to mankind so you can't use benefits to prove science is getting the truth )
Solve the Munchausen trillema without debunking yourself .
Show that something non mental exists .


Now Philosophy can and is tackling these problems for you but I don't think science can do this very well

[Anonymous No.10420805]

>>10419706
>Wishful thinking picture

This is a fallacy ,it's not commonly done in Philosophy this thinking is laughable

[Anonymous No.10420809]

>>10419706
Consciousness Is not easy to quantify and measure. Therefore it scares a math brain

[Anonymous No.10421032]

>>10420809
more like that’s why your philosophy shit is all meaningless jabberwocky words you constantly infect one another’s minds with. philosophers are like the mental version of gays in the 80s desu

[Anonymous No.10421166]

>>10420776
>But if you read someone good like Leibniz , Descartes ,Kant ,Hegel or even scholastics and plato that shit is very thorough ...
ahhh hahaha oh boy anon. just because you like to suck these guys dicks, doesn't mean waxing philosophy over ACTUAL topics you don't even remotely understand is productive.
>Now the "nothing statements" are actually infinitely more founded on then Scientific statements and laws.
Imagine being this delusional. You realize people like Wittgenstein was retarded, right? So retarded, he tried to disprove Godel with an unbelievably, pathetically bad argument.
History is mired in people who think they are the expert in something, when they actually have little to no experience studying that thing.
Modern philosophers are numero uno on that list.
Instead, get deeply familiar with a subject, then start to wax philosophy - you might actually get somewhere.
>Because before you get to doing shit in the real world you need to prove that shit exists .
LOL and there it is. Another "u can't no nuffin!"

[Anonymous No.10421167]

>>10419883
>That mathematics is the universal language because it is both syntax and semantics
What do you make of Oswald Spengler's (and possibly some others') claim about the different conceptualization of mathematics throughout history and cultures.

Before you dismiss it out of hand as some postmodern, liberal, marxists, relativism, I would like to remind you that this piece of work is highly influential among right-wingers, most notably the Nazis. It would be slightly more appropriate if you immediately dismiss him as being one of those people such as the Nazis who reject Jewish physics, but I'd like to see your take on some of his claims.

[Anonymous No.10421197]

>>10420798
>uses topos so structureless that modus tollens is "agreed upon law"
>asserts that philosophy is an endeavor superior in any way to science (or such daunting mental activities as counting pebbles, eating yogurt or sucking tits)

[Anonymous No.10421286]

Y'all, just go back to renaissance to recover the lost unity of science, arts and philosophy. Like nigga be polymath

[Anonymous No.10421288]

>>10418436
A lot of the philosophy discussed on message boards is inevitably less precise and logically rigorous than academic philosophy is. Jordan Peterson does not make very rigorous arguments.

[Anonymous No.10421318]

>>10421286
you can't even be polymath in math itself these days

[Anonymous No.10421485]

>>10421286

I don't think anyone can become a polymath in the same way those of the renaissance could. The need to specialise is simply too great. Do any anons know of academics today who have made contributions to a number of fields in the same way someone like Descartes did?

[Anonymous No.10421493]

>>10419233
Those physicists are cucks.

[Anonymous No.10421533]

>>10420033
Mathematics is a natural language, not science. Most of it is valid, some of it isn't because of some stupid mathematicians. It is both form and meaning. Form are the formulas and meaning is what you see in front of you. The meaning of life is literally what you see in front of you.

[Anonymous No.10421623]

thoughts on this?

[Anonymous No.10422580]

>>10421197
Did you even read my post ?

[Anonymous No.10422581]

>>10421166
Why would Philosophers not understand topics that they invented ? You might as well say art is shit because artists can't draw .

[Anonymous No.10423157]

Ever since Einstein destroyed Bergson, science has been the go-to way to explain the universe and has been popularized in such a way that even many philosophers think that philosophy should play a secondary role in the search for truth. This is for good reason, as scientific disciplines are powerful in their reach and express clear testable results. This being said, the push to do away with Philosophy, in belief that it is too phenomenological and subjective, is negligent on the scientist's part. The base problem with this lies within the very idea of pursuing knowledge. The starting points of our search have been debated over and over again, and science often believes that the logical empiricism that is its foundation is the best starting point that we have. This makes an assumption based off results, which in of itself ignores the interconnected nature of the differing disciplines as well as the possibility of there being an ontological framework not observable by scientific methodologies.

[Anonymous No.10423174]

>>10421623
That it's humanely possible.

[Anonymous No.10423191]

Science is a branch of philosophy though. Not our fault you brainlets can't use empiricism and the scientific method to verify your presuppositions

[Anonymous No.10423370]

>>10423157
Point being that we know too little to give science and mathematics exclusively the role of truth-seeker, especially when considering that they, science in particular, often attempt to do piss-poor metaphysics in order to produce hypothetical possibility and systemic frameworks. There is certainly a role for philosophy, though this does not negate the role that science currently has in testing hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.10423606]

>>10421623
i vote for transcendent polymath. theology anons are crap at being factually correct, and "philosophy is the foundation of mathematics" idiots have no argument since maybe you can make that case for logic but to equate logic with "philosophy" is like equating the one pearl with the huge bucket of ugly rotten oysters you found it in

[Anonymous No.10423982]

>>10418543
everything is in flux ya nigger

[Anonymous No.10423984]

>>10418543
'everything is in flux' you stupid nigger

[Anonymous No.10424749]

>>10418436
Science is Natural Philosophy.

I expect no less ignorance from the /sci/entists of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10424764]

>>10418436
See this is the problem with brainlets like you that try to dictate what science is and what science is not you obviously don't know what the fuck the essence of Sciences if you think that. here philosophy is a different subject yes good point but you're still trying to dictate what science is and trying to define science you're a f****** brainlet

[Anonymous No.10424772]

>>10418436
Why? Perhaps not.
How? Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.10424777]

>>10424749
Science is currently empiricism

[Anonymous No.10424779]

>>10418770
>science isn’t compatible with metaphysics
guess metaphysics is wrong then

[Anonymous No.10424792]

>>10422581
>another brainlet self-styled philosopher tries to steal credit for “””inventing””” disciplines completely beyond his ken
b-but aristotle said something about motion once so physics is just a subset of philosophy right???

[Anonymous No.10424799]

>>10424779
No, empiricism and materialism which plague science today are wrong. To understand science you must read the fathers of quantum physics.

[Anonymous No.10424802]

>>10420798
>can and is tackling these problems for you
*spends 2500 years not answering a single question*

[Anonymous No.10424804]

>>10424799
>science is wrong, just ask all these scientists
so this is the power of philosophy...

[Anonymous No.10424870]

>>10424799
Science is (probably) not wrong. You just can't be absolutely sure if it's right. If done correctly, Science can create "knowledge" which has a high probability of being correct, and that knowledge has helped us for a really long time. If it ain't broke

[Anonymous No.10424885]

>>10422581
>Why would Philosophers not understand topics that they invented ?
LOL you moron.
You tell me how many times I have to hear from some retarded philosopher, who's never taken a quantum mechanics course in their lives, tell me that the Heisenberg principle represents some limit to human knowledge, because I've lost count.
It's fucking not. It's a fucking statement on how fucking circles work. They ask stupid fucking questions like:
>"HURR DURR WHERE IS THE ELECTRON?"
Which is like asking:
>"HURR DURR, WHAT IS THE ELECTRON'S FAVORITE MOVIE?"
Philosotards are so brain-dead, they can't even understand trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.10424939]

>>10424885
>Who's never taken a quantom mechanics coarse in their lives .

Nice ad hominem .

>Limits our knowledge

Must be taking to some sophomores ,no serious Philosopher would say that our knowledge inst limited .It's a fucking challenge to even find "knowledge" this is why pyrrhonian skeptics are pretty popular now.

But a above all the op is attacking Philosophy as a discipline while you attack the people who do Philosophy .You can't even in principle reach Ops conclusion this a non sequitor .

I too don't like the people who do Philosophy but I doubt any one likes the people who do their own field .

[Anonymous No.10424957]

>>10424804
They were the founders of post-modern science and most importantly understood metaphysical implications. They were religious as well. You can't even distinguish between a person and knowledge. You are not worthy of this planet.

[Anonymous No.10425015]

>>10418436
How we exist is the question of several fields of science. For instance, habitable planets and astrophysics, or abiogenesis and biology.
I think you're an idiot who doesn't understand what they're arguing about.
Mathematics is logic with abstract axioms.
Physics is mathematics with real world axioms.
Et cetera.

[Anonymous No.10425033]

>>10424957
>post modern science
this is what philosocucks have been reduced to

[Anonymous No.10425038]

>>10424939
>you have no idea what you’re talking about
>TH-THATS AD HOMIDEM
philosotards want to tell us they understand all sciences and they can’t even understand their own gay terms lmao

[Anonymous No.10425320]

>>10425038
>You

And you proved my point .Attack the Arguments not the person's understanding .

[Anonymous No.10425343]

>>10425320
there’s no actual argument to attack dum dum

[Anonymous No.10425462]

>>10425343
The why even engage ? There is no such thing as not a Argument if it's presented as one only bad Arguments .But moreover how does this get you anything on the discipline of Philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.10425472]

>>10418436
>how we exist
That's science.

[Anonymous No.10425516]

>>10418436
Too many sciencecucks here
This board should be math only

[Anonymous No.10425699]

>DUDE THIS BALD GREEK GUY SAID SOMETHING 20000 YEARS AGO WOW MAN WHOAH IM SO SMART NOW FOR READING THIS
philosocucks, everyone

When will people realize philosophy is just mancave rambling no different than what anyother loser posts online to make life seem less shit?

[Anonymous No.10425743]

>>10425462
>The why even engage
because bullying philosotards is fun

[Anonymous No.10425840]

board communication between anons is messy

you confront chaos with all those autistic messages, insight (info GOLD), time wasted...

Primitive- lazy- humanfags dont train their brains in the machine enough to create a hive mind. KEK you can't even compete. linking brains as a tool, as a weapon. eVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE NOW

SO FIGURE THIS OUT FAGGOTS. /sci/ stop shitty threads and create challenge

[Anonymous No.10425855]

why was Kaṇāda so much better at philosophy than anyone in the last 100 years? are philosophers even making progress any more?

[Anonymous No.10425863]

If you wanna find out about the origin of life and how we got here then fields like physics and biology are probably your best bets for getting answers. Philosphy is just basically advanced lifestyle advice these days.

[Anonymous No.10427178]

>>10425743
>Bullying
>Philosotards

Two terms you haven't established yet you assume .Now I'm sorry but bullying isn't an Argument and I'm sure you know this so how are you any better ? Are you just saying "haha they are bad and I'ma do the same ".

Now for the third time how does this get you anything on the discipline of Philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.10427526]

>>10418436
>asking why
>is not science.

This is fundamentally the most important part of science.

[Anonymous No.10427634]

>>10427526
Why and how are actually the same fucking thing.

[Anonymous No.10427699]

ITT: 18 year olds

[Anonymous No.10427724]

What if the grand scheme of all existence we actually know very little.

Like go outside and see a lizard chilling on a rock. All it knows is sunshine, grass, and bugs. That’s it’s entire world - the end all be all.

What if the entire measure of all our science and understanding doesn’t even scratch the surface of reality/existence/whatever.

OR

WHAT IF WE FUCKIN KNOW IT ALL BOIS!?

[Anonymous No.10427736]

>>10427634
Is it? I mean in certain cases you could conflate the two, but then there comes the dilemma where you can explain HOW something works, but not WHY something does what it does. When you conflate WHY and HOW im guessing you are presupposing the notion of causality and continuity. That is:

Why is there this reality/universe/existence?

vs.

How did this reality/universe/existence come about?

Answering the latter question will give some starting point that must have been the starting point, which some may infer to be answering the former question. i.e. the big bang caused the universe to come into existence, and the following scientific discoveries made since then have showed how this universe works (the laws of nature)

But, then you might ask, why did the big bang happen? Why might be a more strenuous conceptualization of the underlying question, so we might characterize it as HOW. How did the Big Bang happen? Then we might go into quantum physics or religion.

I concur with you, that WHY and HOW are, essentially, the same thing.
But, how can something come from nothing? Then you enter dualistic and non-dualistic types of thinking.

[Anonymous No.10427738]

>>10427699
shoo shoo boomer

[Anonymous No.10427741]

>>10418780
Funny how heavily science relies on philosophy (math) in order to say its things

[Anonymous No.10427752]

>>10418436
.

[Anonymous No.10427783]

>>10423606
bad analogy
and Enlightened theologian is correct, but of course you wont know that because you need dem FACTS!

[Anonymous No.10427786]

>>10425320
this is fucking based.

[Anonymous No.10427795]

>>10427699
We need a prestige badge on here based on level of education that you can confirm with a third party.

[Anonymous No.10427884]

>be math grad student going back home when a friend texts me
>I just realized the setup doesn't matter so I'm just gonna skip it
>eventually alone with philosophy major girl from my uni
>I realize she's been sitting next to me for like 10 minutes and none of us have said anything so I just ask her what's her favourite subject to avoid the awkward silence
>'oh... I'm really into modal logic'
>my interest is piqued since I almost wrote my thesis on modal logic back when I was getting my BSc
>'really? Which theory are you studying right now?'
>'oh... I'm not studying any theory in particular'
>'what are you doing, then?'
>'well, I realized modal theories have intentions'
>I refuse to believe she's telling me a set of axioms, rules and symbols has a mind of its own so I go down the rabbit hole
>'what do you mean by intentions?'
>'yeah, we've discovered theories have some sort of consciousness and, in turn, intentions of her own'
>I still refuse to accept it
>'consciousness like living beings? Like us?'
>'well, not exactly, but each theory wants to fulfill a certain purpose and they will act in such a way to fulfil that purpose'
>'Wait, wait, back up. What the hell do you mean by saying theories act?'
>'yes, they behave in such a manner that they will fill an specific purpose and thus they are conscious being trying to fulfill a purpose'
>'yeah, I get that (I don't) but what exactly do you mean when you say they act?'
>'in some theories some wff will turn out to be truth and in some others the same ones will turn out to be false'
>this bitch is actually saying that having different axioms and rules of inference equals having a conscious mind
>'I have to return some videotapes'
>bolt out of there which is a shame because I didn't find a sit the rest of the night

[Anonymous No.10428322]

"WHAT IF WE FUCKIN KNOW IT ALL BOIS!?"

This comment had me rolling.


The statement, "science is the "how." is innacurate and simplistic. Science is the "how" outlined by our own limitations of perception as a species.

The statement philosophy is the "why.". Is also narrow and innacurate. Philosophy allows for the existence of truths, laws, and natures outside of humanity's current ability to percieve them.

Through out human existence it is the "why" that has driven the progress made in the "how.". It isn't mere coiencidence that numerous contributions to science came from theologins, (Galileo, Newton, Francis Collins, ECT.)

According to string theory there are at least 10 deminsions in our universe of which the Scientific Method can only measure 3. So essentially going on the notion that we lack the capacity to even detect, let alone quantify and measure 70% of our reality. (Let alone the almost negligible knowledge we do have about the 30% we can detect.). So why is the mainstream Scientific community so quick to dismiss any subject that can't be quantified by the Scientific method considering that it is only applicable to 30% of known reality?

Why has Philosophy, a once respected field gained the reputation as some crackpot, psuedo intellectual persuit? A field somehow inferior the one it gave birth to?
Why is it that we are using many of the same technologies developed well over 100 years ago? Why have technologies that immerse our conciousness seemed to have progressed a thousand fold yet those that would threaten to expand it have grinded to a halt?

When people stop seeing the value in asking, "why" they cease to desire to expand their perception, cease the ability to challenge the bounds of their reality, the authorities that have established them, and fall in line like spoon fed sheep.

[Anonymous No.10429257]

>>10427178
im bullying you because you're a cringy autist who thinks you need to define what bullying is in order to do it

[Anonymous No.10429267]

>>10427741
>philosophy (math)
this is almost as bad as philosocucks trying to claim science

[Anonymous No.10429555]

>>10425699
Cause old fuckers figured out the human condition a long time ago and we forget it because memory is terrible even when a person forms a purely conceptual memory

[Anonymous No.10429708]

Yeah but there is such a thing as philosophy of science you fucking dumbass.

Older scientific books have this sort of commentary on the progression of scientific understanding as a whole and it’s fascinating.

[Anonymous No.10430553]

>>10418436

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.10430607]

>>10429257
What sorta Argument is that ?
Of you wanna bulky then why are you and about bad Arguments if you wanna argue then why are your own Arguments fallacious ?

And now for the forth time
What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy ?
>What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy?
What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy?
>What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy?
What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy?
> What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy?
What does this get you on the discipline of Philosophy ?


Or this some anecdotal evidence nothing burger ?

[Anonymous No.10430611]

>>10430607
*If you wanna argue

Damn phone posting is bad

[Anonymous No.10430613]

>>10430607
Fucking hell still wrong
* If you wanna bulky then why are you mad about bad Arguments .

[Anonymous No.10430619]

When can science unironically became a religion, Progress would be so much more fucking quicker this way

>>10419114

[Anonymous No.10430639]

>>10430619
"muh perfectly rationale value system that is based on assertions I don't acknowledge is so much more intellectual and valid than any other idoelogy" brainlets get in the way

[Anonymous No.10430669]

>>10425699
Philosophy is 99% art. It appeals to the artist kind, that is the type of person who just splatters shit on a wall to try and convey meaning, consistently building off each conclusion they form to create a larger artwork, all of it to express a trivial idea in a way that makes the artist look intelligent to the consumer. If the idea had legitimate value it could be expressed simpler in mathematical terms, but it doesn't even stand the initial scrutiny, hence the reason why they masquerade the message in language that appeals to pseuds.

I hate philosophy. I hate art.

[Anonymous No.10430886]

>>10430669
What is there artistic about
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of mathematics
Philosophy of science
Epistemology
Empiricism
Pure logic
Triple point logic
Polish logic
Modal logic
Taxonomy
Semantics


And so on I'm sure it's the opposite way around only continental philosophy can sometimes be artistic and watered down like Nietzsche or Marx but more thorough Philosophy is not artistic at all .

[Anonymous No.10430915]

>>10430607
there’s nothing to be “gotten” about philosophy because it’s a time sink for brainlets who are too dumb for science but still have really strong opinions about how the world works

[Anonymous No.10430982]

>>10430915
>Philosophy is a time sink for brainlets
Nice assertion there ,now try and prove that .For the fifth time

[Anonymous No.10430996]

>>10418436
The Demarcation Problem is itself philosophy.
>>10419118
>>10419706
I feel the intuition is that philosophy can tell us how and why we should make inferences but cannot make conclusions about the real world by itself.
This perhaps could be captured by some sort of relevance logic or type system such that epistemological facts are not of the same type of potentially empirically observable facts about the world around us.
Then problems of the foundations of science would become akin to eliminations of paradoxes of self-reference.
You may also want to separate out facts of your internal mind (I know I feel angry, etc..) from facts of logic and the real world.
Pure logic cannot tell you how you personally feel yourself.
>>10419883
Hilbert's program did not succeed.

[Anonymous No.10431056]

>>10430982
exhibit a: this thread

[Anonymous No.10431138]

>>10431056
>Anecdotal evidence

Not to mention you replied as much as I did is whatever field you do a time sink ?
Furthermore you said Philosophy is a time sink not the people who do Philosophy all though you did call them brainlets .Now once again get some Evidence or Arguments for why is Philosophy a timesink ?

[Anonymous No.10431156]

>>10431138
>same quant score as biology
OH NO NO NO AHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10431175]

>>10418762

[Anonymous No.10431180]

>>10419673
tbqh, it is to any non-postmodernist.

[Anonymous No.10431202]

>>10418543
>>10418436
Funny how high school edge lord faggots that read pop sci but cant even tell you the difinition of an abelian group go around shitting on philosophy.

Youll find that universities (especially big ones) are unique and each have theur own particular culture, but many of the math professors Ive known hAve been deeply interested in philosophy, linguistics, and the social sciences. Stuff like epistemology, rationality, belief, collective decision making, welfare economics, agency, syntax, semantics, reference, and non-classical logics are all closely related to game theory, set theory, topology, logic information theory, and discrete mathematics/theoretical computer science. Only brainlet tier physics majors and 16 year old edge lords think philosophy is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10431219]

>>10431202
funny how math undergrad faggots who think babby's first algebra class will impress anyone go around advocating philosophy.

name one (1) conclusive answer to a question philosophy has provided since its inception

[Anonymous No.10431303]

>>10431156
>Doesn't address Arguments
>Why aren't philosophers not good at what is not needed in the field lmao

Address my points please

[Anonymous No.10432246]

>>10430669
Hello insect