I just made an accurate intellectual hierarchy of academic fields from most intellectual to least intellectual. Please rate. >chemistry. >math. >CS

What made you lose faith in it? The general consensus disagreeing with your unfounded opinions?

Not him but almost all of modern research is steaming poopoo. That's hardly unique to philosophy, though. In sciences, the equivalent is research that's useless.

Based, philosophy before the end of ww2 is ok because it's relatively subjective. Once you get into right/wrong false dichotomy shit is when philosophy craps the bed

>What made you lose faith in it? The general consensus disagreeing with your unfounded opinions?

Almost all of the philosophylets on this board remind me of the guy in my first year epistemology course who didn't understand the Barber Paradox and insisted it wasn't a paradox at all.

Prof had two PhDs, one in mathematics (some branch of set theory, dealing w/ infinities) and another in philosophy.

Was very entertaining. Of course, it is POSSIBLE that this guy, arguing w/ the prof was simply a genius, but I didnt get that vibe.

>It isn't a paradox though. That guy was smart and your professor a moron. Every paradox resolves itself as soon as you clearly see what's wrong about it. It's almost as if self-resolving paradoxes are a law of nature.

So, the barber who shaves only those who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?

The barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself, so he doesn't shave himself, but if he doesn't shave himself, then he shaves himself, but if he shaves himself, then he doesn't shave himself.

It is really easy for ppl who don't actually understand what is being said to say "bullshit." I think it's just that you don't understand why it is a paradox.

Explain clearly what is "wrong with it"?

Perhaps he barber is a transwoman who doesn't need shaving herself. But of course this level of natural complexity isn't captured by old white men's obsession with binary first order logic.

>This only shows that 1. your definition of barber is moronic and

See, you're proving my point. It is a colloquial way of illustrating Russel's Paradox:

"According to the unrestricted comprehension principle, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is the set of all and only the objects that have that property. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The resulting contradiction is Russell's paradox."

This is a problem in certain formalizations of set theory.

I add that paradoxes aren't real because a contradiction result in nothing, so it doesn't exist but that non existence is described by language.

Paradoxes are created by a flawless logic and only by language there is no such thing in nature aka sensible reality

All of these so called paradoxes boil down to the stupid and false assumption that any gibberish sentence should have meaning.

>All of these so called paradoxes boil down to the stupid and false assumption that any gibberish sentence should have meaning.

6.8-9 epitomize your contention.

Where did I mention metaphysics in that post? That's right, I didn't. You are hallucinating again. Take. Your. Meds.

you are not a math major

Neither math nor engineering are sciences in the modern sense of the word. Theoretical physics is also not a science. The quibbling is largely pointless, though, since laypersons don't know what they're talking about when they say "science" anyway.