And I mean that in reverse, meaning you're a midwit if you're into philosophy. Picrelated has been basically my experience every single time diving deeper into a philosopher.
>>18536861Yeah, in my experience the few scientists I've met hated philosophy. They all say philosophers don't contribute anything to society besides writing books and becoming college professors to teach other people philosophy, meanwhile science invents all technology that we have.Never forget though, that science began as natural philosophy, which was just ancient retards making guesses about how nature works lol.
>>18536861I mean, you can't stop people from thinking about, writing about and reading about philosophy. Stop trying, it's stupid. Humans think about this kind of shit. Some humans are better at it than others. We call them philosophers. They exist. Not sorry.
No, in fact for all time philosophy has been considered 'the queen of the sciences' and is the foundation for our knowledge, in fact most forms of science are some kind of theoretical or practical sub-field of philosophy, the scientific method for example is a philosophical contribution by individuals such as Bacon, Descartes et al. Frankly, considering that philosophy is mainly characterised by attention to detail, coherent flow of arguments, and the search for systematic explanations, I would argue that if you don't have some kind of philosophical expertise you are probably a fucking retard, functionally if not necessarily genetically. Not amount of raw IQ will make up for sloppy thinking.Philosophical midwittery is probably most evident in actual midwits, aka not philosophers but the many little drones that claim to parrot them. So for example even political and polemical philosophers like Marx and Foucault made a lot of interesting contributions to the field of argument. However, many drooling retards who call themselves Marxists or Foucauldians do not read, cannot think; they bring the philosophy down to their level. Other midwits see this and assume it is representative of philosophy. It is not.Not to mention that there is again a difference between philosophers according to their grade. Nietzsche for example is an interesting and insightful thinker, but is totally lacking as a systematic philosopher. There's philosophy and then there's a kind of 'philosophy' that is just wit, half-formed insights and polemical jabs. Much modern work is like this, with the rest being dry academic slop. But that doesn't change the fact that philosophy is the foundation of human knowledge, that it has many fascinating and highly illuminating fields, and that any trained philosopher with literally any speciality will run circles around non-philosophically educated people, intellectually.
>>18536861Philosophy is just economics without numbers. Adam Smith knew this.
>>18536861>Is philosophy the ultimate midwit filter?Yes. As in, you're obviously getting filtered by it.
>>18536867>Humans think about this kind of shit. Some humans are better at it than others. We call them philosophers. /threadIt's something you do naturally and unavoidably as a thinking man. Not sure why it enrages American public schoolers so much.
>>18536866>science began as natural philosophy, which was just ancient retards making guesses about how nature works lolI will concede this. I actually do agree that it has been one of the few relevant contributions of philosophy, and it's why i at least partially respect ancient philosophers. >>18536882>the foundation for our knowledgeIn what regard? Can you even posit an example of this?>muh scientific methodThe scientific method doesn't belong to people like Descartes or bacon whatsoever lmao. In fact Descartes philosophy is deeply scientific so he's a great example of a fart huffing retard.>attention to detail, coherent flow of argumentsThis applies to like 1% of great philosophers, you're exactly the type of midwit here who hasn't actually read any philosophical work. >any trained philosopher with literally any speciality will run circles around non-philosophically educated people, intellectuallyIn philosophy* which says absolutely nothing about the intellect of the person.
Get a load of the mind-numbing retard engaging in shit-tier amateur philosophy as he tries to convince himself he's smarter than Aristotle.
>>18536912>deeply scientificI meant deeply unscientific of course
>>18536861Yes, because there are no objective standards for progress in philosophy. It's just verbose babble and has been stagnating since its origin.
>>18536906>Not sure why it enrages American public schoolersThe GDP is the highest value of americans. It is our God. Nothing is more important, and nothing that doesn't directly contribute to the GDP is worth doing.
>>18536912>In what regard? Can you even posit an example of this?In every regard. The systematic pursuit of knowledge and the tradition of study, research and analysis in service of this pursuit developed within philosophy. Experimental science is itself applied natural philosophy, midwit bugmen like you tend to view it more highly and see it as more real chiefly because it allows for the production of toasters, fridges and UHD TVs, so your monkey brains have something of mundane conventional value to associate with it, which must make it worthwhile. But this is the realm of effects, not of causes. Philosophy proper aims at a complete and total account of reality, knowledge in itself, in both its theoretical and practical varieties.>The scientific method doesn't belong to people like Descartes or bacon whatsoever lmao.Yikes. Maybe you should do some basic reading about these people.>This applies to like 1% of great philosophersIt applies to pretty much anyone who's genuinely studied philosophy, probably even to intelligent graduates. Where most philosophers fail is false premises, not the logical development of those premises. This is why rigorous training is important, so that we think well and know what premises are sound and what premises are not sound. Most smart people fail here, and their intelligence turns against them by weaving complex explanations that convincingly justify false premises that lead to incorrect conclusions.>In philosophy* which says absolutely nothing about the intellect of the person.In general. If you studied hard for ten years you'd see the difference for yourself. But you won't.Have you studied any discipline? Do you have a degree in anything? If you have, you have probably noticed that even very routine training has obvious effects.
>>18536929You could've made the same chart with some Christians and atheists a few centuries earlier.Also some of these quotes are stretching heavily. For example Einstein specifically believed philosophy can't exist without science, so he was arguing for philosophy of science. Many philosophers would heavily disagree with this and don't even consider philosophy of science "real philosophy". He also frequently called philosopher retardation, leading to statements like "the time of philosophers does not exist"
>>18536924>there are no objective standards for progress in philosophyIf you substitute "no objective standards" for "no socially agreed upon standards", suddenly a new, radical possibility emerges - that there are, in fact, objective achievements in philosophy, but that most people are too dumb to perceive and recognise them for what they are. This would not at all be surprising if philosophy is in fact an intellectual pursuit, fit only for intellectuals, with its best achievements attainable and comprehensible only for the best intellectuals.
>>18536937Philosophy didn't make my toaster and my uhd tv, science did. Unless you're trying to claim philosophy IS science (which it clearly is not).>yikesDid you try to downvote me too? How are they responsible for the scientific method? I can show you counterexamples centuries and even millennia before. >coherent flow of arguments and logically sound>unironically admits most philosophers have false premises Kek>Have you studied any discipline? Do you have a degree in anything? If you have, you have probably noticed that even very routine training has obvious effects.yes, thankfully not in irrelevant bullshit like philosophy, I did that on the side.
>>18536927>The GDP is the highest value of americans.Ironically, the rich (especially Old Money) send their children to be educated in Liberal Arts, philosophy, the classics... OP's IFLS ideology is a product for mass consumption. Philosophy is for the ruling class who manage wealth, STEM is for the worker drones who generate it.
>>18536941Yep, this is the retarded babble I alluded to.
>>18536924>muh progressWhy do modern people feel we need to be constantly moving towards a collective teleological promised land? It's kind of amazing how unwittingly Christian most secular people are.
>>18536950>a quantity x, like objective scientific knowledge, increases >"this is litrallllie chrischanity!!!"Least retarded philosopher
>>18536946>Philosophy is for the ruling class who manage wealth, STEM is for the worker drones who generate it.Always has been. The Greeks could afford to think all day because they had slaves to do all the work.
>>18536951It is Christianity. What are you grasping for? Why is reaching for some distant end state for humanity the only worthwhile activity? Where does this impetus come from? Can you explain it? I can.
>>18536944>Philosophy didn't make my toaster and my uhd tv, science did. Unless you're trying to claim philosophy IS science (which it clearly is not).Science is a subsidiary of philosophy. The scientific method was literally established as a byproduct of a philosophical dispute between scholastics and the dissenting thinkers of early modernity. But who would know anything about history on the history board?>How are they responsible for the scientific method?Genuinely, read a book. Descartes is extremely famous for his innovations in philosophy and mathematics. His foundational definitions and deductive method set the stage for the development of experimental science. As for Bacon, he is even more renowned as a scientist than a philosopher. The story goes like this: the medieval Church (the intellectual organ of Europe at the time) formalised Aristotelian Scholastic philosophy as the recognised form of knowledge. Renaissance revival of ancient text destabilised this, and folks like Descart, not content with simple polemics, tried to establish a creative foundation that could serve for further intellectual exploration. >>unironically admits most philosophers have false premises That seems surprising to you because you are a retarded monkey. But actually anyone who is not retarded would be able to trace the logical flow of an argument, so by necessity any disagreement between people is down to the framing of the premises. And people with brains know this.>yesWhat was it? It does show you didn't study philosophy by the way.>>18536948At this point I doubt you even comprehended what I said desu. Try to repeat it in your own words, maybe we can confirm if you parsed it right?
>>18536958>expecting niggercattle to reflect on its behaviorHis entire raison d'etre here is to prove that reflecting on anything is a waste of time.
>>18536953>Always has been. The Greeks could afford to think all day because they had slaves to do all the work.The real blackpill in this thread, much more blackpilling than OP's retardation. How come the Hellenes had plenty of slave cattle like OP provide for their necessities so that they could devote themselves to higher pursuits, but I need to write scholarship application forms? It's a disgrace.
>>18536962>Science is a subsidiary of philosophy.That hasn't been true for centuries.>The scientific method was literally established as a byproduct of a philosophical dispute between scholastics and the dissenting thinkers of early modernity. But who would know anything about history on the history board?You think past history proves anything about the current state of affairs?
>>18536958>It is ChristianityNo it isn't, take your medications (invented by scientists).>>18536962>At this point I doubt you even comprehended what I said desuIt's just the typical philosobabble cope about how no one understands how smart you are.
>>18536969>How come the Hellenes had plenty of slave cattle like OP provide for their necessitiesHmm... Well, what kind of violence are you ready to engage in to secure the right to your share of human cattle?
>>18536970Yes retard because the dependence of one field on another is logical not temporal. Descartes' insights were produced in an attempt to go beyond both Scholasticism and revived Renaissance Scepticism, the actual historical moment when his writings were produced is merely incidental and unimportant. What's important is the sequence of development and the fact that new methods and forms of knowledge emerge on the basis of and in dialectic with older methods and knowledges.
>>18536861There were two kinds of philosophy professors in my school. One type would do things like going in the woods or nature, asking questions or writing down your thoughts on a topic. The other type wrote their own books, forced you to read them, and then made you write a paper on how great their philosophy book was.
>>18536988>dependence of one field on another is logical not temporalProof?> What's important is the sequence of developmentWhy is it important now?>new methods and forms of knowledge emerge Name some scientifically relevant "new methods and forms of knowledge" that came specifically from Philosophy as a field in the last 100 years.
>>18536975Ironically that's exactly what your original post was, sans any attempt at explanation or justification. Maybe you are ready to become a philosopher too...? Hmmm. Somehow, I feel it is not likely.>>18536984Now that's a real question, a tough question, one may say, a philosophical question! I suppose, to begin with, I am willing to ruthlessly make fun of OP on this basket weaving forum. Further steps will be considered at their appropriate time.
>>18536998>sans any attempt at explanation or justification.Can you name a question philosophy has answered?
>>18536866Anyway, most inventions came not from scientists but from inventors.Thomas Edison never studied physics; he was a brilliant autodidact.Larry Page skipped college early on in order to create something useful.To be honest, in terms of practical utility, philosophy is useless.It just happend that I'm interest in philosophical questions and I doesn't care for boring excercies.
>>18537000>Can you name a question philosophy has answered?What to make of the fact that the speed of light is constant in every intertial frame.
>>18537004That one was answered by scientists like einstein and lorentz and others. Wanna try again?
>>18537011>Wanna try again?Why? You didn't contradict me.
>>18537013Ok: that one was answered by the science developed by einstein and lorentz and others. Wanna try again?
>>18537018You still didn't contradict me. No wonder you hate philosophy. You can barely form coherent thoughts at all.
>>18537021It must be so sad that philosophy is so lacking that you have to appropriate the work of scientists :(
>>18537025I appropriate what? Are you having some kind of mental episode?
STEMcels and "utopian materialists" skipping all the "gay" philosophy and ethics courses and not reading a word of the classics is how we ended up in the nightmare tech feudalism dystopia we're experiencing today.
>>18537026Calm down, schizo. Your handlers might euthanize you if you seethe too much.
>>18537030Ok, you really are having a mental episode.
Anyway, disregarding the schizobabble, >>18537000 remains unanswered.
>>18537033>remains unanswered.Why are you lying?https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.
>>18536861Yep. Philosophy is like alchemy.It's garbage. Bunk.Put it in the trash where it belongs.
>>18536997I see that you are intellectually spent now and are just asking obvious questions in an effort to bog me down. I will humour you once.>Proof?What you are asking here is for proof that a knowledge system predicated on another knowledge system is still dependent and connected to the originating system.The answer is that modern science is a theory of knowledge: a set of rules concerning evidence, inference, hypothesis formation, testing, confirmation, explanation, justification, etc. These are philosophical concerns and science is fully dependent on philosophy in this regard, both in its formulation and its continual existence. The scientific method as such is a theoretical structure predicated on the broader superstructure of philosophy. It should not be confused with its application (in the form of scientific experiments) or its technological byproducts (the products of modern engineering). So, the scientific method, what makes science science, was, is and will for all time be philosophy, by necessity. When this knowledge system, a sub-branch of natural philosophy, is applied to a given problem, we encounter its activity instead (scientific experimentation).The sequence of development is important because it demonstrates which field of knowledge is the subsidiary branch. That science emerged from philosophy historically and institutionally is not particularly important, but that science emerged as a logical outgrowth of the superstructure of philosophy is important because it demonstrates that science is a sub-field of philosophy. Science did not give rise to philosophy, but philosophy did give rise to science, and once again this is something that occurs for all time as the very definition of the scientific method is heavily dependent upon philosophy for its existence.Modern scientific philosophy is a sub-branch of natural philosophy, itself a sub-branch of philosophy. Your last question misses the point. Science isn't its discoveries.
Just ignoring people who have to use memes and catch phrases like “cope” or “cuck” is a great way to avoid accidentally talking to a brown person.
>>18537046>a knowledge system predicated on another knowledge systemYou haven't shown this, you're just reiterating your original claim.>modern science is a theory of knowledge: a set of rules concerning evidence, inference, hypothesis formation, testing, confirmation, explanation, justification, etc. These are philosophical concernsCalling them "philosophical" doesn't make the field of Science dependent on the field of Philosophy.>The sequence of development is important because it demonstrates which field of knowledge is the subsidiary branchYou haven't show this, you're just reiterating your original claim.
>>18537000Is there a reason why you are asking me to contradict my first response to you here? Or do you just think I am as dumb as you?Here, I will post my initial response again for your convenience.>If you substitute "no objective standards" for "no socially agreed upon standards", suddenly a new, radical possibility emerges - that there are, in fact, objective achievements in philosophy, but that most people are too dumb to perceive and recognise them for what they are. This would not at all be surprising if philosophy is in fact an intellectual pursuit, fit only for intellectuals, with its best achievements attainable and comprehensible only for the best intellectuals.Apparently you missed the point, so I will try to dumb it down further. >if philosophers answer big questions, only people smart enough to understand them and their answers will know which answers are right and which are wrongSo the whole point is that a retarded plebeian like you, and also most philosophers, would not be qualified to answer a question such as 'which questions have been answered' and 'what progress has been made' in philosophy. If you were judging the deadlift form of competing athletes, would you ask an obese retard for his opinion on which athlete has the correct form? No, right? Because an obese retard wouldn't be able to distinguish correct from incorrect form. Well, you are the metaphorical obese retard in this situation, unable to distinguish true from false and progress from regress.
Name some top-tier breakthroughs in philosophy that occurred this century
>>18537039All he says there is that in his opinion, Kant's theory of synthetic a priori was badly shaken by "his" theory of relativity. He is just stating his personal opinion, not resolving any philosophical question definitively. So yes, the question remains unanswered.
>>18537061Anyone is free to read what Einstein himself wrote and decide for himself whether to take Einstein's word or that of a functionally illiterate brownoid on the internet.https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.
>>18537063Positivism is rejected by most philosophers today, so that's another way in which Einstein's personal opinion did nothing to resolve any philosophical question.
>>18537067Anyone is free to read what Einstein himself wrote and decide for himself whether to take Einstein's word or that of a functionally illiterate brownoid on the internet.https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.
>>18536866Part of why I love philosophy is that no one, but by far philosophers, are completely undecided on what philosophy does, what it should do, or what it is.
Philosophy turns into distinct fields when it gets too useful. Physics, math, biology and most recently, linguistics. (and many more)Those used just be "philosophy ", back when they were less developed.I worry there's just garbage left in philosophy, that most of the good stuff has branched off and become it's own thing.
>>18537058So you have no answer and just want to cry about how you're a misunderstood genius again. Got it. Why is this simple question >>18537000so hard for philosophers to answer?
>>18537071I'm sure that's absolutely true in your delusional fantasy. In reality, it's the first thing you learn when you open a philosophy book.
>>18536861Philosophy is far past the point of being useful to modern society.Everything that currently works well now is largely thanks to ancient philosophy that figured out good and stable ways of doing things.The products of modern philosophy won't be useful until the next paradigm shift when the game is flipped on its head.
>>18537054Incorrect, evidently you are simply too dumb to follow the conversation. The scientific method is dependent on concepts articulated outside itself, in philosophy, and this is the case also historically since, once again, the scientific method was devised as a part of a philosophical dispute, specifically to provide a solid grounding for limited material study in natural philosophy. I can only imagine that by continuing to demand more proof you are hoping I will write up a 400 page history of the development of the scientific method for you, examining both its historical and conceptual dependence on the field of philosophy which spawned it. Not that you would actually read or comprehend such an explanation. I will take the fact that you have turned entirely to low effort questions and haven't even attempted to make a counter-argument of any kind, to mean that you are unable and unwilling to defend a position, and are trying to waste my time and energy with diversions in order to avoid having to concede defeat. This is not an uncommon strategy, but I will take this as an opportunity to accept your concession.
>>18537074Why do you keep lying? Your question has been answered here: >>18537004
>>18537075Die mad about it, bigot.
>>18537077>The scientific method is dependent on concepts articulated outside itselfName one.
>>18537071>>18537080>Part of why I love philosophy is that no one, but by far philosophers, are completely undecided on what philosophy does, what it should do, or what it is.I'm sure that's absolutely true in your delusional fantasy. In reality, it's the first thing you learn when you open a philosophy book.
>>18537074But you are the one crying about not understanding what I wrote? This post here >>18537000 is actually an extremely embarrassing thing to have written at all in response to what I said. My point - rather simple I think - is that only those with sufficient skill would be able to recognise correct from incorrect, as it is in every field. And your response to that was to asking me for something that every retard like you thinks is obviously correct. If any retard could do that, philosophy wouldn't have come into existence at all, you know? You would all be philosophers then.
>But you are the one crying about not understanding what I wrote? This post here >>18537000 is actually an extremely embarrassing thing to have written at all in response to what I said. My point - rather simple I think - is that only those with sufficient skill would be able to recognise correct from incorrect, as it is in every field. And your response to that was to asking me for something that every retard like you thinks is obviously correct. If any retard could do that, philosophy wouldn't have come into existence at all, you know? You would all be philosophers then.
>>18537083I named multiple right here >>18537046.Thanks for making a show of how poor your reading comprehension is. It's fun ragging on tools but you don't get to use me as your personal jester, no sir, not when you are an illiterate. Adios!
>>18537088Yes, I get it already. You think you're a misunderstood genius.
>>18537093>doesn't name oneProtip: you will fail to do so in your next post as well.Protip #2: it's because you can't.
You guys are just pretending to be retarded right?
>>18537068>Anyone is free to read what Einstein himself wrote and decide for himselfthat just proves (((einstein))) was a pseudoscientist and relativity is half stolen and half fake. very fitting for a scientific fraud like him to "credit" established philosophers with his fake theory, he must've thought such associations make it sound more legitimate
Generally, most scientists aren't doing foundational philosophy but usually interacting with applied epistemology and applied ethics. If you don't have at least those you can't really be considered to know what that hell you are claiming in the first place. A lot of the anti-philosophy scientists actually are endorsing a view of epistemology and philosophy of science of William Orman Quine and Karl Popper. Basically, it involves rejecting metaphysics as traditionally underestood and focusing on disconfirmation.https://iep.utm.edu/quine-sc/
>>18536861I can tell you're underage by this post
>>18536980>Stephen Hawking
>>18537266He still makes you seethe? Kek
>>18536882The problem is, this doesn't seem to apply only to some kind of low quality philosophers, but to Socrates exactly the same. When you read the Republic, it doesn't really seem that Sorates questions justice in the sense that he tries to question what is just, he questions its existence. He considers it one of the shadows in the cave, that he so proudly doesn't understand. In other words, he is an idiot, and his desperate attempts to learn the meaning of somewhat more advanced words is misinerpreted as some kind of brilliant social comnentary. This seems to be all that philosophy is. A philosopher takes something that is understood so thoroughly and intimately that no questions are left to be answered about it, and starts asking questions about it. When debating with such people, you frequently end up with the inexplicable banana problem. It's when presenting your argument, you use the word "banana" and somebody interrupts you "wait, how do you know it's a banana?", and the entire debate gets derailed, as you are forced to argue something you were not ready to argue about, and ultimately, you have no idea what actually needs to be explained about it. The opposite side pronounces itself victorious, as well as intellectually superior, because they are able to debate if something is a banana or not. And this seems to be the core of all philosophy, the inability to admit that abstract concepts form the alphabet of our thought and can't be taught or exactly defined, but need to be acquired. It seems that people in the classical antiquity were fully aware what a massive setback the iron age was. One of the first things you learn when you study an ancient language like Egyptian is how matter of fact it is. All the ancient world was built entirely without philosophy of any kind, philosophy only came with the iron age, and nothing good, no tangible improvement, has ever come from it.
Philosophy is a mind virus. All good possible outcomes that could have come from it have already happened, all is left is mental illness.
>>18537687>philosophy is bad because it reflects on things that are super obvious to me and thoroughly understoodYou can tell this clotmaxxed retard thinks diversity is our strength.
>>18537692>Philosophy is a mind virusIf so, wouldn't you expect philosophy enjoyers to believe in similar things and sound similar to each other? But instead we can see the opposite pattern: the "people" hating on philosophy seem to be all part of the same retarded horde, repeating the same 2-3 talking points in the same tone with the same mannerisms.
>>18537704>wouldn't you expect philosophy enjoyers to believe in similar things and sound similar to each other?They do to some degree, and no not necessarily. Have you ever heard of contrarianism?
>>18537687>And this seems to be the core of all philosophy, the inability to admit that abstract concepts form the alphabet of our thought and can't be taught or exactly defined, but need to be acquired.Low-IQ take. Philosophically-minded individuals can take this trivial observation and actually develop it. Through that, they come to understand how to use definitions and when to ask for them. Meanwhile you just use it as a thought terminator, or to soothe the seethe when you're confronted with the fact that you don't understand any of the concepts you invoke.
>>18537713>denying empirical evidence + irrelevant copeYeah, no wonder you hate thinking.
>>18537719Woah epic comeback, you got me. I tip my fedora to you, sir.
>>18537718>actually develop itDevelop it to what? No significant contributions were made by philosophy in this manner.
>>18537727>Develop it to what?I literally just told you what, but you're functionally illiterate. Funny how all anti-philosophy cattle really do follow the same pattern.
>>18537738Funny how you're failing to develop your argument in real time
>>18537745See >>18537718. Ask chatgpt for help.
>>18537741I look like that and do that. How did you know?
>>18537727You should develop at minimum a conceptual analysis, necessary and sufficient conditions of all terms you use. Science assumes you have done this as well and this is why measurement is capable of being quantified. from said defnitions You should also be able to conceptualize of your beliefs in relation to each other ni this model and generate coniditions of success or failure for you beliefs. You should be able in other words genereate counter arguments. Podcast with a professional philsoopher desribes what this looks less formally.https://philosophybites.libsyn.com/janet-radcliffe-richards-on-what-is-philosophy
>>18537751>I look like that and do that. How did you know?Because your retarded horde all look and act the same.
>>18537752>philosophy is when we le think and analyse Generic pointless definition and I didn't mean that definition when making this thread.I specifically mean the field of philosophy.
>>18537752>>18537759>when 80 IQs try to have an "intellectual" discussionThe bottom one already admitted it isn't capable of developing its trivial thoughts.
>>18537758Another masterfully crafted, victorious argument. Well done, sir.
>>18537768>>18537741>>18537695>>18537090Go back to your containment thread >>18536773
>>18537771>>18537704>Philosophy is a mind virusIf so, wouldn't you expect philosophy enjoyers to believe in similar things and sound similar to each other? But instead we can see the opposite pattern: the "people" hating on philosophy seem to be all part of the same retarded horde, repeating the same 2-3 talking points in the same tone with the same mannerisms.
>>18537773>to believe in similar thingsThey tend to do so imo, with the notable exception of materialist and some analytic philosophers, which are just a tiny subset >and sound similarThey all sound extremely similar
>>18537781Putting your delusions on display is not a refutation.
>>18537783Ahem >>18537773
>>18537773Actually they tend to cluster around certain views. For example, there is a common theistic substantalist view, physicalist view, and process view for example. The exception of this is epistemology and logic which exist more like languages.
>>18537785I can see you're losing your mind but the point stands completely unchallenged. Your delusional no-u reply doesn't even make sense if you think about it for 2 seconds. There's no viable mechanism for it.
>>18537795>Actually they tend to cluster around certain views. For example, there is a common theistic substantalist view, physicalist view, and process view for example.That already covers a huge range. It's like you're trying to undermine your own position.
>Ackhchually, it's a good thing that philosophers can't agree on anything!Lmao.
>ackchually [talking point #3] lmao>t. nondescript horde member #18537804
>>18537798>There's no viable mechanism for it.The mechanism is that they're more articulate than him and talk about stuff he can't grasp, which is all the same to an 80 IQ.
>>18537800>huge range>according to philosophersI can simplify quite a bit, you can cluster all philosophers into like 2-3 categories: believes in made up shit, doesn't believe in made up shit, either of those + abstract shit is foundation of the universeThat's literally it.
>>18537831>believes in made up shit, doesn't believe in made up shit, either of those + abstract shit is foundation of the universeVery good. You should stick to talk that reflects your actual level of understanding. But even a retard like you should be able to see this just makes things worse for your case: now it covers pretty much every option.
>>18537840Can you keep seething in your containment thread?
I know I hurt you. You basically keep telling me. :^)
I think only hard-science scientists should be taken seriously as philosophers.There's absolutely a chockful of famous philosophers who are only seen as great thinkers because people around them agreed they're great thinkers. It's basically a charisma&connections game of eloquence amongst the elites, for millennia. It's thinkers like Euclid who are undeniably the real deal.
>>18537886>I thinkNo, you don't. https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.
>>18537890>I was inspired by thing x so it's just as valuable as the thing I'm doing An absolutely retarded argument if you think about it for more than two seconds. People get inspired by the most random of things, such as:>works of literature>nature>religion>dreams>philosophical babble
>>18537933>An absolutely retarded argumentLike any other argument you would make. What's your point?
>>18536906the day you die will be better for the world than any day in which you were alive.
>>18537948Why are you losing your mind with rage?
>>18537718No. The problem is that philosophers don't understand how thoroughly vetted the common opinions are. All the data have been gathered, thoroughly processed, and definite, final conclusions have been made, but philosophers think that they can bring something radically new to the table. As an analogy, let's take the map of the world. Everybody normal understands that it's complete, nothing new can be added. There are different projections, with different advantages and drawbacks, and you can get a globe if all of them bother you. But a philosopher thinks that his penetratiolng intellect will allow him to radically redraw it, while everybody understand it's a complete waste of time, and no, you didn't point out a gap, it's the pacific ocean, and we know that nothing much is there, only water and some occassional island. Then the philosophers proudly point out that each of their map is different, as if it wasn't a proof that they are all fucking insane.
>>18537984You realize your cretinous rambling has nothing to do with the post you're responding to, right?
WARNINGYou might encounter the Moldovan schizo ITT.Signs you're interacting with him:>you get one or multiple replies to your post>the reply contains a brainlet wojak or similar type of image >the reply just quotes your post, sometimes with a small addition of a statement equivalent to "ur dumb">you are called mental patient, schizophrenic, or similar terms on your posts repeatedly.
>psychotic patient can't stop giving me the satisfaction
>>18537988>You realize your cretinous rambling has nothing to do with the post you're responding to, right?that's a consistent theme here. philosophically retarded people can't discuss anything, to nobody's surprise
A consistent pattern here is that the most fanatic defenders of philosophy here are unable to defend philosophy very well.
>>18536861The Bible tells you the meaning of life, suffering and explains human behavior better than anything else.
>>18538041>fanatic defenders of philosophyare they in the room with us right now?>are unable to defend philosophy very well.defend it against what? you can't even read, how can you hope to attack philosophy?
>>18538045No it doesn't.
>>18538050Yes it does
>>18538050>>18538068>two philosophy deniers trying to debate
>>18538068No, it doesn't.>>18538071I don't deny philosophy.
>>18538073You probably also claim you don't deny God.
>>18538077God isn't real.
>>18538081Proof?
>>18537718It's pretty much never useful to ask for definitions. Abstract concepts need to be acquired by every person independently. They are non-transferrable. If the person failed to form a concept, no definition will be adequate, and if they did form it, no definition is needed. They appear to be mutually non-redundant - no concept will arise for what can be described using existing concepts and no concept can be adequately described using any combination of other concepts. They can't be learned or taught, it isn't possible.
>>18538156Every aspect of your profoundly retarded take stems from your confused conflation between how concepts are learned and how concepts are used.
>>18538073you ain't read it
>>18538156>They can't be learned or taught, it isn't possible.Then how did you learn what any of those words mean?>>18538166>confused conflation between how concepts are learned and how concepts are usedBasically this. You learn a concept implicitly from seeing how it's used in a bunch of different contexts, which ends up broadening it beyond the scope of a single, coherent definition. But when you use it in a specific context, you intend it to function in a specific way. You don't define your terms to teach concepts, you define them to pinpoint the specific aspects of the concepts that your argument relies on. If you can't do it, you're just babbling like a chatbot and don't actually understand what you're saying. Definitions are ultimately about self-reflection.
>>18538339People naturally form concepts that allow to describe the world around them in the most effective manner. Only then you can successfully asign words to the concepts.
>>18538382That's a lot of words to say nothing and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote.
>>18536866Science is just applied philosophy and in fact, it was known as natural philosophy before it became known as science. The scientific method, the foundation of modern science, traces back to Aristotle.
>>18538809Basically contemporary science is a a further development of Aristotle combined with Anaximander, the presocratic philsoopher, and Kant, the enlightenment age philosopher.>>18538156Not all concepts are pragmatically useful, not true nor do necessarily have access to everyday folk concepts either. We often don't really know our concepts.
>>18538940The only way to know any of those things including whether common sense is common to begin with would be to philozophize about it and use various philosphical methods. At minimum you have to do a conceptual analysis of it and get it's necessary and sufficient conditions.
Ironically, the idea of common sense itself arose from Scottish philosophers like Thomas Reid . He believed in substances that could be known but differ defended them in argument b.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_B_jVzPPOAThe idea of irreducible conventional experience but with with no metaphysical essences or substances can be found with Tibetan Buddhist philosopehr Tsongkhapa. rdinary experience is conventionally valid but ultimately empty of intrinsic nature (svabhāva). For Tsongkhapa, common experience is not mistaken simply because it is ordinary; rather, it is trustworthy within the conventional domain. This view in a way is a lot like contemporary conventionalism in philosophy of science and measurement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DfAd9g1Rj4
>>18538985>Philosophy invented the idea of common senseThis is your mind on philosophy.
>>18536882>There's philosophy and then there's a kind of 'philosophy' that is just wit, half-formed insights and polemical jabs. Voltaire was so eternally mad at being objectively inferior to Leibniz in basically every respect that he wrote Candide, which is essentially one long shit smear on the page and a bad story too.Foucault is basically on Voltaire's level. I have zero respect for that NAMBLA fucko.Nietzsche isn't the giant edgelords make him out to be, but he's better than those two cretins by a country mile when it comes to the fundamental integrity of his approach to the subject. His work has virtue totally lacking in those other two quacks.
>>18537076You're already there.The reason things are so shit and the species is speed running extinction is because philosophy is more widely neglected now than it ever has been before.
People not knowing how think good make them get dumb.Why do nobody learn smart?
>>18538964>>18538985The way that common sense works is that the neocortex creates the most efficient model of the world, reconstructs the original inputs from this description, and checks for errors. All further thinking primarily works with this model. Which means it can't be outdone by any formal method because of its sheer scale, and both philosophy, or the formal scientific method only cause confusion if people choose to follow them in place of common sense.
>>18536861Holy shit you're filtered lol
>>18539108>The way that common sense works is that the neocortex creates the most efficient model of the world, reconstructs the original inputs from this description, and checks for errors. All further thinking primarily works with this model. Which means it can't be outdone by any formal method because of its sheer scale, and both philosophy, or the formal scientific method only cause confusion if people choose to follow them in place of common sense.In other words, your common sense is telling you that you are dumber than an animal and to extrapolate this to the rest of humanity.
Philosophy is the meta of any intellectual activity. As soon as you start reflecting on things you've been taking for granted, turning them into distinct objects that reason can work with and asking intelligent questions about them, you're doing philosophy. If you're not doing philosophy regularly, you're the very definition of an NPC.
>>18539180>philosophy is just le thinkingNo, nowadays philosophy explicitly refers to the fart huffing "science" of philosophy
>>18539223>>philosophy is just le thinkingThat's not what I wrote, though. Try again.
>>18539245No, it's literally what you wrote:>>18539180>As soon as you start reflecting on things [...] you're doing philosophy
>>18539249>literally signifies omitting a chunk of what I wrote>that's literally what you wrote!!!
>>18539245>>18539258if you're so smart how come you can't just ignore obviously unintelligent posters? reflect on that faggot
>>18539180>pzomb.png>left side:>philosopher reflecting deeply on the experience of getting stabbed - fully conscious>right side:>unintellectual pleb unerflectively reacting to the stabbing - basically a p-zombieChecks out
>>18539264>>18539299Please consult your own warning sign >>18538009
>>18539330you sound actually insane
>>1853686695% of scientists have learned autism and are terrible at everything outside their hyperspecialized niche. t. scientist
>>18539163You shutdown the most advanced part of the brain and think it makes you special, and don't realize it makes you special in the opposite way than you think.
>>18536861I like philosophy, I think it's pretty neat.
>>18539429You're just telling me stories about an imaginary character in your head. I can introspect on my world model and my thinking without shutting it down. This possibility seems difficult for you to grasp.
>>18539474The previous posts called me basically an animal for claiming that common sense is superior, which implies that you treat is as some kind of animalistic instinct. In my opinion you fear it because you are unable to formalize it, and disregard it in favor of inferior ways of thinking that you can more easily understand.
>>18539859You said you see no value in higher cognition, claim it only confuses you and you seem to believe it's inherently at odds with intuitive comprehension. That tells me you're not capable of useful introspection and live in fear of it, reacting unreflectively like an animal.
>>18536861It's useful to have a map of different ways of thinking in relation to one another, but the school system does such a bad job of teaching us that map it's tempting to suspect it's bad on purpose.For example what I remember from elementary school and middle school:>Once upon a time there was a lot of conflict because religion, but then there was the Enlightenment, the age of logic and reason and inventions and industrialization and progress so here we are now living a better quality of life than anyone ever before.You can still see this meme on Reddit. Isn't it just blatantly dishonest to not give a balanced overview and summary of the helpful and harmful contributions of religious, modern and postmodern worldviews? And in relationship to OP: isn't it just blatantly dishonest to deny the necessity of teaching at least basic variations of propositional logic (induction, deduction, forms, rules), ethics (moral absolutism, moral relativism, utilitarianism) and metaphysics (physicalism, idealism, dualism, panpsychism)?
>>18540105>logic is le philosophyAnother retard
>>18540053Common sense is the highest level of cognition, you are simoly confused about how animals think. Lower animals have no common sense, but they can still solve puzzles, count, or think logically or immitate each other. Even bumblebees can be made to solve puzzles, and ants appear to count their steps to find their way. >>18540105The elightenment was the opposite of what you're taught, it was the turn away from such bullshit, in favor of empiricism, and away from rule based society towards good manners and honor. Only the South and prewar Europe were post enlightenment societies. The puritans rejected the enlightenment, and keep fighting for their medieval mindest to this day.
>>18540105>isn't it just blatantly dishonest to deny the necessity of teaching at least basic variations of propositional logic (induction, deduction, forms, rules), ethics (moral absolutism, moral relativism, utilitarianism) and metaphysics (physicalism, idealism, dualism, panpsychism)?No, teaching any of this to stuff to sub-125-IQ golems makes them literally insane. 80% of the posters ITT would've been better off if they hadn't been taught how to read or write.
>>18540315>the highest level of cognition is one where I can't explain why my meaningless rhetoric even means, let alone justify itCommon sense in this situation would dictate that you stop making retarded gurgling noises and shut your mouth.
>>18540569>You can't do it because I don't understand it!The tyranny of the retard. Should we also prohibit walking, because it's unfair to people who are unable to walk?
>>18540590That you can't do it is intrinsic in your rhetoric. You'll also prove that you can't do it in your next post. Explain how you differentiate between "common sense" and retarded brainfarts that feel intuitively compelling. Protip: you are only allowed to use """common sense""" when constructing your explanation, no philosophical reflection.
>>18540315>The elightenment was the opposite of what you're taught,Reason, manners and honor all suffer from the same problem though: contradiction, hypocrisy and conflict. That's why the postmodern view that people use all these pretenses to exercise power is helpful. Unfortunately the powers that be have abused this view as a guidebook rather than has a warning, so now people wish to return to pre-modern times.However we already see that the people who wish to strive for the highest good again in a communal manner, first want to get rid of anyone who is deemed evil to make a fresh start. And so history will repeat. What does philosophy have to say about that other than to concede that history is cyclical?
All philosophy is just word games. There's never anything substantial to it, nor is it falsifiable. Much of it is outright schizzo babble word salad that somehow became elevated into a position of authority. Most philosophers are like those worldbuilding autists on reddit that create fantasy worlds, except instead of creating fantasy worlds they create little autistics ideas about all sorts of concepts based on absolutely nothing.
>>18539180>Philosophy is the meta of any intellectual activity. As soon as you start reflecting on things you've been taking for granted, turning them into distinct objects that reason can work with and asking intelligent questions about them, you're doing philosophy. If you're not doing philosophy regularly, you're the very definition of an NPC./threadthat explains all the NPCs in this thread lashing out against some generic strawman philosopher who writes gobbledygook for a living. what you're describing is not something they personally can or want to do
>>18540606>All philosophy is just word games. There's never anything substantial to it, nor is it falsifiable. Much of it is outright schizzo babble word salad that somehow became elevated into a position of authority. Most philosophers are like those worldbuilding autists on reddit that create fantasy worlds, except instead of creating fantasy worlds they create little autistics ideas about all sorts of concepts based on absolutely nothing.How is your claim falsifiable though?
>>18540636It doesn't matter. I don't claim to be a philosopher. We could sit here writing books back and forth about it, and it wouldn't change one bit. It would just be linguistic wankery. That's exactly the problem.
>>18540606>>18540673This is linguistic wankery. You're effectively a biological chatbot. You can't explain or justify any of your statements because your "mind" is philosophically void.
>>18540674>You can't explain or justify any of your statementsNeither can ""philosophers"", but instead of being honest with themselves they end up thousands of pages of sophomoric drivel.
>>18540680>tu quoque I accept your concession.
>>18540680end up writing*
>>18540682>le epic fallacy, that means I win! Another example of the folly of philosophy.>I accept your concession.What did I concede you fucking retard lmao. Stop talking in memes.
>>18540686>What did I concedeThis:>You're effectively a biological chatbot. You can't explain or justify any of your statements because your "mind" is philosophically void.Nevermind fallacies, your tu quoque deflection implicitly acknowledges my accusation.
>>18536861yeah philosophy is a waste of time. study something where you're actually guaranteed to learn something real and true, like math, science, history.spend 500 hours studying mathematics or history and you'll have measurable increased your knowledge and skill. spend 500 hours studying deleuze and you've wasted your time completely.
>>18540682A tu quoque is only a fallacy if you attack the opponents behavior that can live independently from the claim.For example: saying "you shouldn't smoke" doesn't get any less true if the person who says it is a fervent smoker.However saying "you can't explain your thoughts properly either, nobody can" is not a tu quoque in response to "you can't explain your thoughts reee". Here, the tu quoque is not independent of the claim, because your opponent is implying that even the paragon of thought, le ebin philosopher can't do it properly. And if the paragon can't do it, you can't expect it from the person itself.Your entire argument basically went like this:>prove you can sprint in 5 seconds!!>I can't, but neither can top sprinters so it doesn't matter >REEEE TU QUOQUE
>>18540714>in 5 secondsMeant to add 100m in 5 seconds
>>18536866>TRUST THE HECKIN SCIENCE DOOODYou are a massive retard gorilla nigger
>>18540714>A tu quoque is only a fallacy if...You have profound mental retardation. For the second time: I'm not arguing about fallacies, I'm just recognizing your kind concession of my point:>You're effectively a biological chatbot. You can't explain or justify any of your statements because your "mind" is philosophically void.
>>18536970>That hasn’t been true for centuriesThe entire idea behind proving hypotheses and «true until proven otherwise» with a criteria of falsifiability is literally a modern invention that only dates back to the 1940s lmfao
>>18540742That's not even a coherent reply.
>>18540591You just need to accept that skills are not transferrable. You can think of it as ESP - acceot that sone people have mental powers that are incomprehensible to you, but somehow, it works. >>18540595There is nothing hypocritical about it, and it isn't pre-modern. It's very modern, we are only being brought back to the middle ages, before these things were developed.
>>18540751You just need to accept that if you keep claiming that you're a dumb subhuman incapable of reflection, I can take your word for it.
>>18536861Philosophy is just what occurs naturally once one begins to ask himself about the concepts and presuppositions that he uses daily. Lacking this form of practice is just sign of low intellectual curiosity for abstract knowledge and concepts>>18536866Checks out, most autists don’t score really high on verbal/conceptual IQ but are often good at following a sequence of tasks. Ironically during the few years I studied CS I’ve always felt that this was the source of much seething. STEMcells were simply too intellectually limited to understand the appeal of social sciences and philosophy and had to cope with superiority >>18536912What’s funny about the scientific discourse is that modern science only dates back to the mid 1930-50s. The idea that you need to empirically verify some theses that you had is relatively modern. Beyond that, the simple valuation of material reality and its inquiries alongside «progress» is also very modern>>18537000Scientific proof doesn’t work the same in abstract fields, but generally the following result from philosophy : empirical proof, logical rules, argumentative rules, deontology in X field, legal realism, good as self-valuation, politics as interpersonal organization, subjective experience etcWhat’s funny is that because you’ve never asked yourself questions about concepts like democracy, morality, truth etc, you’re simply not going to see the relevance of these. To you, these are simply going to be meaningless pixels on your screen.
>>18540751>good manners, honor and empiricism didn't exist before the modern ageLmao ok
>>18540762>the following result from philosophy : empirical proof, logical rules, argumentative rules, deontology in X field, legal realism, good as self-valuation, politics as interpersonal organization, subjective experience etcSo?>What’s funny is that because you’ve never asked yourself questionsYou've never asked yourself the question I just asked you.
>>18540762>Philosophy is just what occurs naturally once one begins to ask himself about the concepts and presuppositions that he uses daily.>philosophy is just le self reflection broHere we go again. Funnily enough all famous philosophers with the exception of like 2-3 are extremely presupposing and only abused their thought processes to confirm conclusions they've already arrived to beforehand. Literally the only example of the opposite happening I can think of right now is Spinoza. Maybe Hume and Nietzsche if you wanna stretch it. That's literally it.>heh those stemcels are just too dumb for social sciencesLmao nice cope however doesn't reflect the reality of social science vs stem degrees whatsoever. Social science degrees are literally just yapping and memorization, philosophy absolutely included.>modern science only dates back to the mid 1930-50s. The idea that you need to empirically verify some theses that you had is relatively modernYeah bro, before the 20th century people just guessed and shit, how did humanity ever advance. It's almost like the scientific method is something more fundamental and was just properly codified in the renaissance and enlightenment age.>ackchually philosophical proof works le differentK cool, but why can't you still name a question philosophy has answered?
>>18540770>K cool, but why can't you still name a question philosophy has answered?Reminder for the short-term-memory-loss-suffering psychotic patient:https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.Apparently Einstein thought it helped him solve a few questions. :^)
>>18536861 New STEM vs Humanities Thread Drop.>>>18540769
>>18540772>the greatest contribution of modern philosophy is partially inspiring EinsteinGood to know philosophy is on the same level as sci-fi books
>>18540787>i-i-it wasn't t-t-that importantAnyone is free to read what Einstein himself wrote and decide for himself whether to take Einstein's word or that of a functionally illiterate brownoid on the internet.https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.
>>18540808Einstein kinda agrees with OP btw, despite liking some philosophers. He especially has a disdain for the fart huffing kind you so seem to adore
>>18540818>desperate deflectionNot relevant to this exchange.>>18540770>K cool, but why can't you still name a question philosophy has answered?Reminder for the short-term-memory-loss-suffering psychotic patient:https://physicstoday.aip.org/letters/albert-einstein-to-moritz-schlick-1>Truly masterful is your discussion of relativity theory’s relationship to the philosophy of [Immanuel] Kant and his disciples. Their trust in the “incontrovertible certainty” [apodiktische Gewissheit] of “a priori synthetic judgments” is badly shaken by the recognition that even a single one of those judgments is invalid. Your argument that positivism suggests the theory of relativity without requiring it is also very right.>You’ve also correctly recognized that this line of thought has had great influence on my efforts, specifically [Ernst] Mach and, even more, [David] Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn’t have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.Apparently Einstein thought it helped him solve a few questions. :^)
>>18537029this anon gets itwithout philosophy, there is no morality, and without them, we end up with nothing more then grinding GDP number up
>>18541021You would not even know what GDP is or if you are grinding them up without some philosopher doing applied epistemology in the first place either.
>>18540818He had in mind a type of post-Kantian Idealism. This is a line of philosophy that sought to reconcile Kant's claim that we only had access to the phenomenal world with Hegel's claim that reality was known through a system of necessary and universal ideas that also explain and are the phenomenal world. They thought in terms of abstract metaphysical systems that explained culture in law like ways, a kinda cultural physics even at times.The more respectable versions of these were things like Bernard Bosanquet which did try to do science the worst of these influenced the romantics like Arthur Schopenhauer.
>>18541389Philosophers by the way are not fans really of that now a days and consider it for the most part worthy of derision. For the most part where people find that stuff is online and in tik tok. Think 12 hour video essays on random niche media that then use it to explain some socal phenomena in terms of ideas that people necessarily and universally have.
>>18537083There is a basic and obvious answer that you should know, if you don't, you shouldn't be discussing this. What's it like to only engage in a conversation using questions that originate from lack of knowledge?
>>18541423Ok, so you also couldn't name one. Am I supposed to not see this pattern?
>>18541394>Philosophers by the way are not fans really of that now a daysName one.
