Respond to this without sounding mad>"I can't help noting that the people who pound the table like, 'It's a simple fact, we should have a simple answer.' They're angry. They're insistent. They're frustrated. I mean, just look at what the emotional aura is of that claim. 'We need a simple truth.' And like, whoa, why are we so angry about that?">"I ask the same question. What is a woman? Freud asked the question: what does a woman want? But you could also say, what is a woman? My own sensibilities say it's a great question, but it's wondrous. It's wonderful. Let's keep that question open, because you know what? There are going to be a lot of different ways of answering and will give us access to human complexity. And then we'll know more about the world and we'll be able to affirm the human in its complexity rather than putting it into fixed boxes and smashing in those nails. So for me, 'What is a woman' is a great question, but I would just keep it open.">"This is a movement that seeks to control knowledge, to suppress knowledge, to stop us from questioning -- even to attack Socrates, who taught us the absolute importance of open inquiry.">"The anti-gender ideology movement is an attack on knowledge and an attack on open inquiry."https://youtu.be/GNc-MP8eoMU?t=1045
>>17006122I enjoy philosophy, but I will also say that the vast majority of contemporary philosophy is trash
nothing wrong with philosophy but they try to survive in a scientific world and, especially in USA, to a materialist(money/goods/utility) world. in general they are good BUT they abuse of provocative statements ("physics is trash!", "all mathematics is dumb!") that they cannot sustain later. and a lot of them seems to no understand very well the reach of their own assertions. they reasonably discuss some presupposition (good thing to do) in some scientific theory and, for no reason, jump to the idiotic conclusion "this a BIG problem in SCIENCE" "you cannot do any meaningful science before this is solved!!!". they have some good and intelligent people. it's a pity. also, they are good for history of scientific ideas
>>17006122OK, but you know she o any feminist never ever won a single debate? feminist politics is based in the work of CIA and democrats. feminism is deprived of any intellectual (much less scientific) value.
>>17006122What is this scientific theory of nothing?How exactly do you falsify nothing?
>>17006190>How exactly do you falsify nothing?prove something exists
>>17006207No, something and nothing go together like peas and carrots, x+0=x. You wouldn't have falsified nothing, you only would have proven something else exists too.
>>17006122Let me present you my overarching bullshit theory. Tenets:Tenet 1.: The abilities to generate and detect bullshit are largely independent. It is, therefore, perfectly possible to be an excellent bullshiter, who is unable to detect bullshit, and this includes his own bullshit. When multiple such people collaborate, they drown in endless piles of bullshit that they constantly generate. Tenet 2.: The way we detect bullshit is primarily through creating abstract frameworks that make describing bullshit impossible. Good bullshit detectors therefore detect bullshit not trough carefull introspection, but because their abstract frameworks make bullshit intuitively incomprehensible. Tenet 3.: More abstract frameworks are more resistant to bullshit. Tenet 4.: More abstract concepts can be used to describe less abstract concepts, but not the other way round. For example, you can understand bull as a male bos, cow as a female bos, and a calf as a child bos. You will learn all the less abstract words with your more abstract framework, even though they may feel a bit clunky. However, the other way round the words will feel nebulous, and impossible to grasp. Thus, the concept of a woman feel nebulous if your thinking framework is insufficiently abstract to encompass it. A more abstract framework may indeed provide a more nuanced understanding, but little need to debate its meaning.As a conclusion, our society has descended into a pathological state, where excellent bullshitters label themselves as great thinkers, and call smart people stupid for not getting their bullshit.
>>17006178debating things is maybe the gayest thing you can do. real ones take action
>>17006122philosophy is real but most philosophers are idiotsit IS falsifiable BUT unlike physics, you can't just test that, you need somebody smart to point out exactly why it sucks logicallythat and retarded midwits have infested it. There can be no other explanation why Judith Jarvis Thompson is taken remotely seriously.
>>17007431Tons of philosophers in the past also disagreed.I think the problem is that having a logically coherent view is too low a bar, almost no philosophical view was refuted because of a strict logical contradiction. The ones that were, were themselves usually about formal systems.
>>17007436it's because of hume
>>17006178fag
