>be me. >be an analytic philosopher. >start hanging out with mathematician and physicist colleagues

>be me
>be an analytic philosopher
>start hanging out with mathematician and physicist colleagues
>decided to introduce myself to them
>tell them i analyze language, do research on philosophical things, logical analysis, and analyze languages
>they look at me funny
>math anon: are you sure you are a philosopher? you sound more like a scientist who tries way too hard to look cool
>physicist anon: yeah, you sound a lot more like a scientist than a philosopher
>got a bit butthurt so i asked them "hahaha, okay then, what do you guys think philosophers do all day?"
>they replied with: idk, pondering about life and stuff??
>mfw
why are these motherfrickers like this? WE ARE DOING IMPORTANT SHIT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO, YOU FRICKING PRETENTIOUS wienerSUCKERS

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >WE ARE DOING IMPORTANT SHIT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO,

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >pondering about life and stuff?
    That is what philosophers do though
    There seems to be an issue with definitions and too many things lumped together:
    >i analyze language
    linguistics is a science
    >do research on philosophical things
    >do research
    what does this mean? do you study the history of philosophy? If so, you are a historian. However if you ponder
    >about life and stuff
    as said above, that is philosophy
    >logical analysis
    logic is both philosophy and mathematics
    >and analyze languages
    linguistic again

    Don't be embarrassed, they were just being more specific, nothing wrong with that, it wasn't a personal attack, I doubt it. You were not wrong, but neither were they.
    cheer up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So philosophy specifically refers to things that do not have actual logical answers?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >linguistics is a science
      i'm sorry to say this but language analysis is something analytic philosophers do too. it's called "philosophy of language" and it's a branch of the analytic movement. you should go read it more

      also, linguistics isn't a science, it's a humanities discipline

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kinda being reductive here, what's a "humanities discipline" in your opinion? Linguistics aims to model language based on observations and studies made on actual people. At least certain treatments of linguistics. Systematic organization of knowledge based on testable models is what science is about no? Why can't something lie in the overlap between humanities and science?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          as far as I know: humanities is an umbrella term for linguistics, art, literature, philosophy, music, and etc. linguistics cross paths with social science, yes, but at the end of the day it's still part of humanities

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unfortunately not many philosophers nowadays ponder about "life and stuff". It was done in Ancient Greece and Rome and the most popular philosophical ideas that are actually relevant today like stoicism emrge from that era. That's what get people interested in philosophy - how to live your life and be happy and find a meaning. And if modern philosophy tackles such themes, it's also influential and popular (like existentialism). But since academic philosophy now is mostly analytic, we get wannabe stem austists like OP who are too dumb to do proper science and that's why nobody cares about philosophy or what contemporary philosopers do. This split between what most people (including scientists) think philosophy is and what actual philosophers nowadays do is so huge I find it both amusing and sad.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that begs the question, how do we unite analytic and continental philosophy together?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          we don't. the whole analytic tradition projct in a strict sense (works of Russell, early Wittgenstein, Vienna Circle) failed miserably so there's nothing to unite. there's gradually more and more overlap with "continental themes" (such as interest in history, metaphysics, social sciences, humanities, art) and in a few decades there will be no split anymore. The only thing that is different now is probably the canon (e.g. current analytic philosophers won't quote Derrida or Foucault in their papers because they didn't study their stuff and continentals won't quote Frege and Ayer for the same reason).

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only respect you'll get as a philosopher is if you do formal logic.

    • 1 month ago
      B00T

      I haven't done anything wong.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        True. But formal logic forms the basis of computing science, so it's a bit more well known among non-philosophers.

  4. 1 month ago
    B00T

    You're not getting your jibby because then I'd be weak to my cause. I told you. Now leave me be.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "Analytic philosophy" is a cringe LARP. They want to pretend being logical while being too low IQ to realize that they are abusing formal logic outside of its intended scope (math). You may impress reddit teens with this but any mathematically educated person sees right through your bullshit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair to philosophers, philosophy majors have highest IQs alongside mathematics and physics majors, so that part is not true.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >alongside mathematics and physics majors
        Nice try physics majors, don’t you dare glom in to us math majors and philosophy majors. Go nuke some more innocent people while you’re at it, we’ll be here modeling your behavior and analyzing your power structure until we find the Jenga piece that will make your israeli power structure come crumbling down

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sorry but it is based on empirical principles, which I'm sure mathematics majors aren't very familiar with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            LMAOOOO
            >MOGGED
            >O
            >G
            >G
            >E
            >D

            https://i.imgur.com/oyQ6jdR.gif

            >WE ARE DOING IMPORTANT SHIT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO,

            frick off

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The jenga piece will be a physically technogically burly jenga piece, anon

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And legally and musically complex on the next rung of jenga pieces

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think the bottom of the jenga tower it is family and marriage (remember Rome do not out source your Caesar)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we’ll be here modeling your behavior and analyzing your power structure
          you sound like an economist, not a mathead

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Math grows through motivating observations that need rigorous explaining and the depth of physicists inanity is an infinite well of paradoxes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/8PyFCRj.jpeg

        I'm sorry but it is based on empirical principles, which I'm sure mathematics majors aren't very familiar with.

        Philosophy majors' IQ is hard carried by the verbal/language component of tests. Without it, they're midwits at best. They're practically glorified English majors, but with reasoning ability slightly above other English majors.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where is climate science?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's part of "Earth Science."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Economics keeping up with the big boys.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why the frick is Electrical so bad? It's possibly the hardest engineering major.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its good, it just doesn't depend that much in verbal IQ

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's possibly the hardest engineering major.
            elaborate?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Many worlds interpretation is just a variation of the multiverse theory for philosophy grads who want to publish a paper.

          Theoretical physics is a useless shitty paper mill and quantum suicide is a shitty gibberish pseudoscience even by theoretical physics standards.

          Philosophy is a subject for midwit morons who want to feel smart and useful but aren't intelligent enough for actual hard subjects.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair to philosophers, philosophy majors have highest IQs alongside mathematics and physics majors, so that part is not true.

      I have encountered so many analytical philosophers like this. Not saying all of them, but there are plenty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nice try, continental philosopher

      [...]
      I have encountered so many analytical philosophers like this. Not saying all of them, but there are plenty.

      >Not saying all of them, but there are plenty.
      where???

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I’m jealous, it sounds like it would be cool to hang out with you. I did a math PhD but I always liked reading analytic philosophy on the side. I used to read Searle quite a bit, too bad he turned out to be a creeper.

    • 1 month ago
      B00T

      I'll contact you soon regarding the mode. This has to be contractual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I’m jealous, it sounds like it would be cool to hang out with you.
      eyy, that's more like it. how can i contact you? you know, for conversation and stuff

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Easiest way to contact me is to challenge me to a chess match on lichess dot org. My username is “literal-nobody”

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I forgot to mention, challenge me to a correspondence game

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >too bad he turned out to be a creeper

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is important anon, continue doing philosophy.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the intricacies of major philosophical movements. The nuances are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of foundational theories, most of the concepts will go over a typical reader's head. There's also the existential undertone in many philosophical texts, deftly woven into their arguments — for instance, existentialism draws heavily from the works of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. True aficionados comprehend this material; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these theories, realizing that they aren't just abstract ideas — they say something profound about LIFE. As a consequence, people who dismiss philosophy as impractical truly ARE misguided — of course, they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the existential humor in Sartre's famous line "Hell is other people," which itself is a cryptic commentary on human interactions and societal structures. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those uninitiated individuals scratching their heads in confusion as the brilliance of philosophical discourse unfolds before them. What fools... how I pity them.
    And yes, by the way, I DO have a collection of philosophy books. And no, you cannot borrow them. They're for those who can demonstrate an understanding of the similar number of philosophers as me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i can't read more but i do have an ask would you please pretty please be kind enough to bless me witha concrete and easily visible _subtlety_ that is helpful to show me what sorts of levels of subtle you are talking about. If you could show me a basic one ican be like whoa harder ones would be way more subtle even. I am so not fine if you don't but i feel a strange to me social need to say i am confident no example will happen and the futility of me lending the info that it would help a lot of things and i knew not just for me to see an example so long as it's graspable yet representatively subtle.

      a reddit spacing side not about this. I have a likely cynical or hurt part of me that figures most of philosophy is just saying simple things in a difficult or obtuse way that isn't very helpful and at the same time im sure you are definitely going to find tons of subtly in a science basic on word games as far as i know it getting as formal as they can without being math that is THOUGHT. And honstly my hot take thoguths are mostly bullshit especially the well conceived systemetic logical ones that require a bunch of words that likely obscure the simple broadly for the sake of a truth not worth the squeeze. I'm just cynical because my heart and shit see only a dick would mention something as unimportant as what his heart is. And i know thata you know i mention it only because im sad and i want a random person who it is impossible to in good faith expect them to care. My heart is worthless even to me. But damn it i want you to know i'm pretty sad. And i waste yoru time more by letting you know broken hearts may hurt but at least they rest in the simplicity of permanent ruin that lets you accept being about anything because you know just how much everyone is so much more high than me it just makes me feel safer to be unknown and mattering little. Being a low person is kind of comfy and sad.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Analytic philosophy is so fricking cucked lmfao. You guys can’t decide if you want to be peer-reviewed scientists or philosophers and get appropriately ridiculed by serious members of either group.

    You ruined everything good about philosophy. This is your punishment.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You ruined everything good about philosophy.
      >You guys can’t decide if you want to be peer-reviewed scientists or philosophers and get appropriately ridiculed by serious members of either group.
      lmfao, what do you know about analytic philosophy anyways? dumb loser like you couldn't comprehend the complexities and beauty of analytic philosophy

      >analyze languages
      How does that not make you a linguist (or philologist, but you obviously didn't mean in the cultural way)?
      If you are truly a philosopher, you should known actual philosophy detests if some concept is tied to a certain token, and could not instead be replaced by a referent variable which may or may not carry name(s).
      E.g. just recently I had a discussion with a tard who insisted all ethics is actually consequentialist. So I just told him "cool bro, so the word is meaningless if it can't be used to create a distinction from other (meta)ethical frameworks. So I'll just call it "superconsequentalism". I could also call it "clownism". It doesn't matter. The concept, the idea, the mechanism behind something does."

      If you analyze language, how do you account for that? You do not actually study language if you never need to include research on tokens.

      uhm, hello? philosophy of language is a thing, you know?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >analyze languages
    How does that not make you a linguist (or philologist, but you obviously didn't mean in the cultural way)?
    If you are truly a philosopher, you should known actual philosophy detests if some concept is tied to a certain token, and could not instead be replaced by a referent variable which may or may not carry name(s).
    E.g. just recently I had a discussion with a tard who insisted all ethics is actually consequentialist. So I just told him "cool bro, so the word is meaningless if it can't be used to create a distinction from other (meta)ethical frameworks. So I'll just call it "superconsequentalism". I could also call it "clownism". It doesn't matter. The concept, the idea, the mechanism behind something does."

    If you analyze language, how do you account for that? You do not actually study language if you never need to include research on tokens.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They sound based. Analytic philosophy is trying to do things with scientific and mathematical rigour while dealing with concepts from humanities that have no rigour whatsoever. That's why science and math progress while philosophy is in the state of constant "discussions" about hundreds years old topics. At least continental philosophers, with all their shortcomings, don't pretend they are doing science, but they actually provide grand commentary about society, values and art, which is continuos with other humanities disciplnes. And that''s the way philosophy should be. After all people associate philosophy with figures like Nietzsche, Sartre or Heidegger, not with Quine, Putnam or Kripke. Analytic philosphers like you dickride stem related fields, but it'll never be the other way around. This onesidedness is kinda pathetic.
    t. studied philosophy and math

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that's an interesting insight... tell me more about your experience with analytic philosophy and what you know about it. and also, tell me how philosophy should be in this day and age

      What exactly do analytic philosophers in your field do? Can you point to some examples that would enlighten me so that I can come to understand why it should be taken seriously?

      we pretty much do what scientists do, doing research and all of that. we focus on humanities (i.e art, literature, language, etc) rather than the sciences

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > we pretty much do what scientists do, doing research and all of that. we focus on humanities (i.e art, literature, language, etc) rather than the sciences.

        This might sound somewhat strange to you, but I haven a pretty hard time conceptualizing what this could possibly mean in a practical sense. I actually quite like reading philosophy and have read a decent amount of the "classical canon" and a few of the key modernist/post-modernist thinkers, but I can't imagine "philosophical research" as a concept. It seems like in the best case it is either some mixture of creative writing and formal logic, and often is little more than literature but with some "deeper meaning" handwaving to indicate that confusing areas are actually just esoteric rather than unintelligible.

        This is why I asked if there were introductory examples you could point to so that I could see what kind of resale you are referring to. I'm willing to believe I misunderstand the process, but I'd like examples of analytic philosophical research to see for myself where I'm going wrong.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that's bullshit though. continental philosophy focuses on art and literature, analytic core from the very beginning is philosophy of language, science, mind and math. I think you're larping as a philosopher here. Nice bait.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You cannot know nuffin

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What exactly do analytic philosophers in your field do? Can you point to some examples that would enlighten me so that I can come to understand why it should be taken seriously?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >like a scientist who tries way too hard to look cool
    Do you really perceive the world in terms of coolness? What's the coolest math?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this point makaes me happy because it makes me examin coolness.
      my first reaction is coolness must not be real then! nothing is cool or uncool. Then further it occured to me yes there is cool but only locally. Some or one person perhaps even all in some select window of people will find things cool or uncool. So cool exists. And i don't think cool is just a subjective thing. Cool could be something that generally speaking concious beings when they discover something find it surprising and possibility expanding that in the omment of discovery is so cool because wow that changes my picture of things. Also you have preferences which are there. So cool means i prefer this, or i find it surprising and usefully expanding to hold in my mind.
      >t. coolness is a very valid waay to view things just not as a universal, coolness is preferences mostly so universal cool things? Those are just sections of knowledge that general manifest to conciousness even perhaps non human if we could measure it as horizon expanding to experience or know

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That is just an Wittgensteinian language game so your point is invalid and your entire field is pointless.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if this is honest then i feel for you bro and would need to recommend you choose to not care what others decide about you thata's none of your business i've heard so if you can't ignore it i'd say do your best to avoid thinking about it until you genearlly don't or the thoughts are weak and don't bother you. If thsi is dishonest i'd say nice show for us of affected and unreal emotion. It got your point across enough i was worried about making sure you at least get that you have an option to not care about things that seem like only harmful to hold. Good job i suspect it's just fake emotions so people like me want to reply. A guy who writes as well as you seems like someone who knows at least this much by now - do not bother with what others say at worst accept it agree with it. Say i am this or that and say that is still fine. Or better i'd prefer if you don't have actual feelings like this that you don't give others a reason to harbor real concern over your theatric post-pizzazz reasons. It's not only lying it's not needed. You are more believable if you are just like. There are people who think this. It dont bother me iam old enough to know how ot disregard unhelpful stuff that i didn't come up with BUT i would like some takes on these dudes thinking i'm something i'm not or whatever. You seem fine honestly and i have a quiet knowing that not only will my post be ignored. The best i could (foolishly - foolish to hope when you already hve what's present) so i won't thope but if iwas a basic boy enough to not know to abandon hope always i would expect especially from the original author would be you pretending again. Most likely in a stupor. People are almost all in a stupor to a greater or lesser degree. And if you do something silly like meditate you might start to come out of it and find it painful but ok to see so many pretendings happening because someone is not lost in the noise of jupiters static energy they call thoughts to see what any of us is

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they don't have enough range in their knowledge. they know a lot about physics and math. and that's it.
    by the way, I respect philosophers a lot, especially the ones who are interested in science.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >shit that never happened
    cringe

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most philosophers i know are useless brainlets but there might be a few among them who are actually doing useful work. what's your opinion of AI and how it affects language?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP, but this image misunderstands on a fundamental level how a perceptron works (though the way they do function doesn't imply thinking either).

      The MLP/NN functions as a continuous/smooth transformation from R^n to R^m (where the input dimension is n and the output dimension is n), not as a discrete lookup table/search. There is no memory in a transformer scheme and there is no searching involved in the actual function itself. While you could argue that floats on a real computer have finite precision length (and thus the set of their possible outputs is at most countable), the computer is discretizing an absolutely continuous functional mapping and thus will not have a consistent "set" of values aside from quantized samples in the continuous image of the function.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what's your opinion of AI and how it affects language?
      it has potential. newest fields in philosophy right now are philosophy of AI which combines philosophy of mind and philosophy of computer science and AI ethics which is one of the many branches of applied ethics

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to whoever thinks science can be philosophy-free

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh underlying philosophical assumptions
      Which ones is he talking about? Reality exists? Logic works? Lmao, how much of a pseud midwit do you want to be?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        never before have i ever seen such a fallacious argument

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that's a philosophist™ for you

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh underlying philosophical assumptions
        I am not him so I cannot say without looking to quote him. Funny how quick that fell apart! I like to say "in the spirit of X" or "aiming at X". Both compensate the other. In the absence of sensibility the overarching goal should elucidate the aim. In the absence of an overarching goal the sensibility will find a goal worth aiming. Pure experiment monkeys are the ones who treat science as religion. The philosophers are prone to solipsism ignoring data but may have a rationale that trumps the whole line of reasoning.
        Example: Peaceful protestors cure coronavirus by fighting racism...wow so much data very science yes I follow your science rules, science king. Solipsism is thus wise to blindly ignore the experts and join the angry "idiots" mocked on television.
        We all know when Jesus freaks get rekt in medical, geological, historical debates because this solipsism is as powerful as queens checkmating society by handling business with only less than bareminimum need to know basis of frequent marketable popularity contests.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >dennett
      didn't read the quote. don't care. he's a pseud

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy turned into science once scientific methods and mathematical models were developed. So philosophy is now useless redundant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >So philosophy is now useless redundant.
      okay moron, then explain why we need ethics in science and other philosophical things in science like the "many worlds interpretation" and "quantum suicide" in theoretical physics

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Many worlds interpretation is just a variation of the multiverse theory for philosophy grads who want to publish a paper.

        Theoretical physics is a useless shitty paper mill and quantum suicide is a shitty gibberish pseudoscience even by theoretical physics standards.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Theoretical physics is a useless shitty paper mill and quantum suicide is a shitty gibberish pseudoscience even by theoretical physics standards.
          >Many worlds interpretation is just a variation of the multiverse theory for philosophy grads who want to publish a paper.
          it's not even bait at this point

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Multiverse is already a philosophy subject moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *philosophical physics subject

            [...]
            Philosophy is a subject for midwit morons who want to feel smart and useful but aren't intelligent enough for actual hard subjects.

            >Philosophy is a subject for midwit morons who want to feel smart and useful but aren't intelligent enough for actual hard subjects.
            >muh hard subjects
            I can guarantee you haven't know shit about applying philosophy in hard and soft sciences

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is tied too much to the humanities to ever really be anything else. Analytic philosophy is memery.

    Pretty much, if your field is such that there's still an emphasis on original texts, reading the original writings (even if translated), a weird cult of personality around figures and their writings (not in a historical sense either), etc. you're never going to be truly analytical.

    Like, honestly, not to jest, how many Physicists do you know who have read Newton's Principia Mathematica or Maxwell's original papers? How many mathematicians do you know who have read Euler or Euclid? I mean there are occasional ones and some may read a paper here or there, but like, the larger STEM field emphasizes ACTUAL synthesis of knowledge. Even with greats appearing.

    Like give me an analytic philosophy text to read and don't give me an original author, if so I'm going to laugh at you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Like give me an analytic philosophy text to read and don't give me an original author
      https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0631205691
      https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf
      https://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Routledge-Classics-123/dp/0415254086
      https://www.amazon.com/What-Analytic-Philosophy-Hans-Johann-Glock/dp/0521694264

      >Philosophy is tied too much to the humanities to ever really be anything else
      wrong, philosophy is universal and dynamic. it can be applied to anything, from science to humanities. what background do you come from when you make this statement?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it can be applied to anything
        Philosophy cannot be "applied" at all because there is nothing to apply. Philosophy has neither a methodology nor any objective knowledge. It's a big nothingburger. A pseudointellectual excuse for midwitted social rejects to experience an illusion of being smart.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Philosophy cannot be "applied" at all because there is nothing to apply. Philosophy has neither a methodology nor any objective knowledge. It's a big nothingburger. A pseudointellectual excuse for midwitted social rejects to experience an illusion of being smart.
          more morons.... i swear, you are another person who's illiterate at philosophy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >after studying almost 3000 years of philosophical discourse the best argument I can come up with is a shallow insult
            Thanks for proving my point.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what's the point of dismantling an argument where there is none? sorry buddy but your """argument""" is laughable joke. a moron argument deserves a moron answer

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't make an argument, I stated a fact. You seem to be philosophically underprivileged if you are unable to engage with this fact. If you need further clarification feel free to ask questions. But dismissing it without understanding is the opposite of philosophy.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Shut up, moron. I'm a scientist and hence a natural philosopher.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Neither is Daniel Dennett. He's a caricature of someone who sucks at philosophy.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Why not? What qualifies one to call themselves a philosopher?

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can you ever truly know that you cannot know nuffin?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >analytic philosopher

    why are u wasting your life and my tax money?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >oh no no no, not muh heckin tax money
      >my tax money is only for Ukraine, not for philosophy

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I reseach words that already exist in the dictionary
    Prove that you've done anything except waste paper and electricity.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The vice of name-calling is to an extent inherent to all the formal sciences: logic, math, CS, even linguistics (at least the part that deals with syntax), but at least in each of those it is a side-effect of their main goal: to create new knowledge by analyzing their subject matter carefully and precisely.

    In contrast, I'm not sure if analytic philosophy even has a coherent subject matter to call its own, and hence it's hard to shake off the feeling that analytic philosophers are merely engaging in name-calling, with nothing to show for it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In contrast, I'm not sure if analytic philosophy even has a coherent subject matter to call its own, and hence it's hard to shake off the feeling that analytic philosophers are merely engaging in name-calling, with nothing to show for it.
      philosophy of language, mathematics, and science

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >philosophy of language, mathematics, and science
        That's what you find in pop-science books, written by authors who are either unwilling or unable to present material worthy of contemplation or even attention from actual subject matter experts.
        Surely you can do better than that?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          do you understand how language works, right? if you don't then this is what I mean:
          >philosophy of language
          >philosophy of science
          >philosophy of math

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd expect such superficiality from a physicist, but the mathematician is what makes me feel shame

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I ended philosophy and nobody even knows who I am lol.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Elaborate/

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        On what?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you don't ask it means you don't care enough which means you don't deserve to know.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ended philosophy
          This is an interesting statement.
          How did you do it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is love of wisdom. Once you have all the wisdom you need, then you can start just acting and doing. The wisdom you need might be different than the wisdom I need, so I can't tell you what wisdom you need unless you ask a specific question relevant to your life.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The person who cleans the sewers do important shit, you are just pretending to be doing important shit to deceive yourself.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    philosophy is to science what alchemy is to chemistry

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the greatest asset of philosophy is also its greatest weakness. by asset I mean the way you do philosophy. unlike science, there is no standard nor method to follow when doing philosophy. this means that anyone can do philosophy with their own way and method but this also makes it harder to distinguish pseudophilosophy from legitimate philosophy, unlike science

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *