Why is philosophy needed in the current day when science allows us to behold the universe in such beautiful detail as picrel? Why doesn't philosophy take from math, as it is the fundamental way to understand physical phenomenon?
>>25089488philosophy is more foundational than mathematics.
>>25089488it isn't, it's nothing more than a recreational activity
>>25089488they already tried that and it didnt really go anywhere
>>25089488Science is unable to grasp meaning, morality, beauty or any of the things that actually make us human. It reduces everything down to mechanical processes. Look no further than how science sees a human: as a defective automaton whose every character flaw is reduced to muh chemical imbalance, to then be stuffed full of medication and brainwashed so it can be squeezed into the homo economicus worker drone mold.
>>25089488This a theoretical formula for frog?
>>25089513No, it is for measuring friendship. Can't you tell?
>>25089488"None of modern science has the slightest value as knowledge; rather, it bases itself on a formal renunciation of knowledge in the true sense.The driving and organizing force behind modern science derives nothing at all from the ideal of knowledge, but exclusively from practicalnecessity, and, I might add, from the will to power turned on things and on nature. I do not mean its technical and industrial applications,even though the masses attribute the prestige of modern science above all to them, because there they see irrefutable proof of its validity. It isa matter of the very nature of scientific methods even before their technical applications, in the phase known as “pure research.” In fact, theconcept of “truth” in the traditional sense is already alien to modern science, which concerns itself solely with hypotheses and formulae thatcan predict with the best approximation the course of phenomena and relate them to a certain unity. And as it is not a question of “truth,”but a matter less of seeing than of touching, the concept of certainty in modern science is reduced to the “maximum probability.” That allscientific certainties have an essentially statistical character is openly recognized by every scientist, and more categorically than ever in recentsubatomic physics. The system of science resembles a net that draws ever tighter around a something that, in itself, remains incomprehensible, with the sole intention of subduing it for practical ends."
>>25089488In the degeneration of the knowing persona, through the re-search of knowledge, science, with its inexhaustible matter and its method made of the proximity of small, finite goals - with its cognitive self-positioning, which objectively tests and always repeats the same minimal reaction of the organism (which not only does not demand but does not tolerate the entire persona) - with its need of specialization, has taken root in the depth of man’s weakness and given the rhetoric of knowledge a solid constitution for all the coming centuries. In the infinite sum of things that they do not see, men of science carry, with the tenacity of experimentation, the brief light of their dark lantern, in order to glean little by little from the simultaneity or succession of a given series of relations a presumption of causality: a modest hypothesis, which should become theory or law. Law of what?Law that in the given coincidence of given relations, the given thing happens at the given point. But how is it given and what for? "Because. . . ,” they answer, struggling to derive a new law with new experiments. And at each “what for?” they answer “because,” forging with difficulty,
>>25089488Magnetic field of a moving charge, I think.Fuck off.
>>25089525step by step, their paths of infinite causality, each in his bur-row. It is the tale of Stento, repeating all the preceding steps toadd one tiny step more. It is true that thus did the Hebrewscircle around Jericho without attacking it until the walls crumbled, but the Hebrews—then!—had a god who didn’t fool around. Men of science have the god of philopsychia, pleasure, whose life consists of fooling everything that lives just in order to live.
>>25089488>beautiful detailGot any equation for defining beauty?
>>25089488Mathematics can explain and unite phenomena at the object level; it stays true regardless of observer.Philosophy is required to explain things at our level, us the subject of our existence. You can *use* math to explain stuff but if you want to become happy, or reach whatever goal you think your existence is about, you must exploit all the knowledge gained through exploratory science, and unite it back into a system of importance in relation to you, a system of values, this is the step where you cannot avoid doing philosophy.
>>25089488Real philosophy does
Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτωphilosophy and science complement each other and shouldnt be placed antagonist to each other
>>25089488>current day>posts century-old physics that has been superseded by deeply ugly and incomprehensible slop Philosophy wins again
>>25089488without philosophy science just becomes a collection of facts without value.
Science and math are complimentary but distinct disciplines. Science is empirical and employs induction. Math was reinvented as its own discipline by the Greeks when they pioneered math based on deductive proofs
stemcel death camp
>>25089488>look at these beautiful ideal forms that exist in the realm of math that model the universe! You are a Platonist and don't even know it.
>>25090268He doesn’t know that most theoretical physicists are implicitly or explicitly Platonists. Phil. of science, particularly of physics, has had a revival of seeing the field under Platonist lenses. Mathematical Platonism is probably the only robust philosophy of math.
>>25090282>Mathematical Platonism is probably the only robust philosophy of math.What is one divided by infinity? Is it an infinitesimal? Is it zero? Or is undefined?Trick question. The answer: whichever is most convenient for the maths you're working with, as any mathematician will tell you
>>25090296>still didn’t critique Platonismyes, there are questions in math. Yes, there are different ways of arranging ideas in math to come up with different answers to the same question.
>>25089504Neither does philosophy.
Based OP. Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology > Psychology > Sociology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy. Math reigns above all.
>>25090344So does one divided by infinity have Platonic reality, or not?
>>25089516Ah. It's Apu. I see now.
>>25089488there is a philosophy of science.there is not a science of philosophy, or of the many other things that there is a philosophy of.
