I just realised philosophy (outside of political philosophy or philosophy that can be applied politically) is esssentially a waste of time and you&#03...

I just realised philosophy (outside of political philosophy or philosophy that can be applied politically) is esssentially a waste of time and you'll learn far more reading fictional literature. It all just comes down to proofs given on assumed proofs that they themselves admit are unprovable thus defeating the purpose and proof and of their own proof.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I just realized philosophy is a waste of time
    >shares his philosophy
    You aren’t a great thinker or even a good thinker and you’re only claim to anything is the wasting of your time and then you die. Read what you want but don’t go around saying or thinking you’re right about anything

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We have this thread twice a day you peabrained Black person

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We should have it 10 times a day so philosophyBlack folk finally leave.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your mother needs it ten times a day because she’s a massive prostitute

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Define your utility function that determines what's "useful" and what's not, wagie.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > outside of political philosophy or philosophy that can be applied politically
    I really enjoy reading aesthetics and feel it really deepened my appreciation and understanding of art. Wollheim, Gombrich, Danto, Bell, Collingwood, all great thinkers of art who gave me insights I never would have obtained if I hadn’t read them.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is dead, long live philosophy

    The new philosopher looks forwards, not backwards. The task of the new philosopher is to further unknowing. The question is no longer knowing the truth, but casting off illusion, to deconstruct those lies we've let fester and overcode reality. We've got to continue the war against the christian necrometapolis...

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every tard who """""criticizes""""" philosophy should be instabanned and executed. Why? Not because philosophy is beyond criticism but because 100% of these posts are so unbelievably low-iq and plain wrong that it's a crime to make anyone read these. Respoding to OP is waste of time. Reading OP's posts is self-harm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >criticism should be le banned (is a criticism)
      >responding is le bad (is a response)
      >reading things I don't like is "self harm"
      Behold, the power of philosophy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        should be le banned (is a criticism)
        I see that your reading comprehension is lacking
        is le bad (is a response)
        If you ask yourself who (I) am responding to, you might understand the difference but I don't have high hopes for you
        things I don't like is "self harm"
        Your writing is such low quality that it should be considered as harmful
        , the power of philosophy.
        You seem a little mad and confused about what philosophy even is

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine having 2500 years of intellectual tradition, yet the best argument you can make is a poopoo peepee insult. Lmao, your post completely destroys the reputation of philosophy.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >proofs
    Dumb frogposter. Proofs only exist in math. Philosophy does not deal with proofs. Any philosopher who claims to have rigorous proofs is a low IQ larper.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is math

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Math has always been the polar opposite of philosophy. Math proves its claims whereas philosophy just expects you to believe its bullshit based on subjective faith. Math produces valuable tools for our understanding of the world while philosophy in its entire history never answered any relevant question. It has always been like this. Even in ancient Greece we had geniuses like Euclid and Archimedes on the one hand advancing humanity with math, and Plato and Aristotle on the other hand talking baseless bullshit of no value other than creating the illusion of pseudointellectualism in their readers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of this stuff.
        Philosophy is rooted in the transition from "The gods did it" to "there is order". It started with astrology and culminated in Thales and Pythagoras.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Math has always been the polar opposite of philosophy
        That's a profoundly moronic statement.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Plato's philosophy though, is explorative in purpose. In the same way fiction (which Plato ultimately is) tries to impart a lesson through narrative, he just provides a view which you can discuss on your own time. It's also very eloquently put, unlike most philosophy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nice selfie

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aristotle, who famously never wrote a single thing about the sensible world

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The problem is that philosophy does not accumulate truth as science does. Philosophy has to continually attempt at it, each time getting closer and closer, and each generation learning from the fallacies of the previous one, until just *maybe* one generation figures out how to make sense of the universe. We are still in that process. Finding truth is the beginning of science, and the end of philosophy.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this is the smartest post in this thread, which is science btw

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Science does not "find" truth, it is but a malleable and fissiparous consensus constructed by a cotterie of fallible individuals molded by social contexts and strictured by the internal biases and ingrained habits of their own discipline that inevitably tergiversates under pressure of revisionist models that engender a paradigm shift. It offers no absolute certainty, but merely abductive rigour at its very best; tethered as it is to the dissipative method of induction, it provides naught but a semblance of predictableness to a narrow set of observable phenomena that scarcely represent the totality of all transpiring events. The scientific method is posterior and consequent to social changes, and thus will always submit to reigning mores and perceptions of reality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t. wrote thesis on the effect of internal biases on young queer black autistic girls

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That rebuttal of yours is intellectually impregnated with a lot of unspoken ethical claims, primarily a normative notion of productivity. But what is the intellectual foundation upon which this edifice is constructed? What is, in your estimation, the teleological end of human existence and therefore society? What is the normatively ideal state of existence all political activity ought to strive towards? Why *should* people be productive? Why is material well-being a telos whose pursuit is worthwhile? Why is productivity in strictly material terms ethically preferable and more desirable than the pursuit of the liberal arts?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Black person

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody mentioned productivity. Stop jerking off over imagined arguments that never happened.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The implicit value judgement behind the snarky comment was that philosophy has no immediate material benefit. The essence of this individual's argument against philosophical debates is rooted in productivism. You are either obtuse and disingenuous or simply too moronic to parse basic argumentation.

            >Politics is just applied ethics
            Stopped reading right there. Poverty, tyranny, war and genocide are the opposite of ethics.

            You assume that poverty, tyranny and genocide are unethical, which is itself something that has to be demonstrated as part of the field of ethics. How society ought to be organized is self-evidently consequent to anterior notions of what is the good.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you believe humans are inherently evil?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only God is good (Matthew 19:17), but everything God created is good and nothing is to be rejected if it received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4); it is by becoming slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:22) and coworkers with God (1 Corinthians 3:9; Hebrews 3:14) that men become good by participating in God's glory, His activities. Man is innately neither good nor evil -- his free will allows him to either reject God or accept Him, which is what determines his character. Our nature as affected by original is vile and depraved: but God predestined us for glorification (Romans 8:30), so that we may have bodies like Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21), for we can do all things through Christ, Who gives us strength (Philippians 4:13).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree with you. If you are the high verbal poster you are pretty based if that opinion amounts to anything worthwhile.
            It's extremely difficult to relate to people that have little or no exposure to the Holy Ghost or outright reject it. The sad thing is people are more prone to misery and animalism without it.
            Any sort of organization through man-made philosophies ultimately fails and is logically inconsistent without conformity to God's Word. The Greco-Roman philosophers were pretty based though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            explain the Holy Spirit. I really don't get it. The Father is what we refer to when we talk about the caring/punishing God, the Son is Jesus of course, but what does the Holy Spirit mean?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            believing whatever bullshit without question

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This depends on your level of belief in the supernatural but -
            It is literally a "pattern of behavior" but also an intelligent entity that exists within the mind/body of every believer modifying the impressions they would normally receive from the world and attempting to guide the believer's actions. The level of influence of the Holy Spirit depends on how much your actions conform to His will.
            At this point I am not 100% familiar the established theology but - The Father is God, uncreated creator outside of the space and time of this reality, the source of all existence, physical laws, immateriality and the material world. The Son is God in human form, with the intent of saving humanity from its doom.
            You can't be Christian (not of this world) and in favor of genocide (worldly concern - particularly extreme), not sure what happened with that poster...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't be Christian (not of this world)
            or more accurately - in attempt to avoid tribalism, you cannot be saved.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The implicit value judgement behind the snarky comment was that philosophy has no immediate material benefit.
            Is neither contained in the post nor implied by the post.

            >The essence of this individual's argument against philosophical debates is rooted in productivism.
            Non sequitur.

            I hate to repeat myself: Please stop jerking off over imaginary arguments that never happened.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You assume that poverty, tyranny and genocide are unethical, which is itself something that has to be demonstrated as part of the field of ethics.
            If you believe "Do not kill" is not self-evident and requires "proof" then you are dysfunctional on many levels and immediately disqualified from any discussion on ethics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"Do not kill"
            >Excludes him entirely from ever discussing ethics again

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >look at me being such an edgy ethical relativist trying to argue in favor of genocide
            Nah, frick off, kid. You will never be a true philosopher.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No one here ever argued in favor of genocide

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This poster did:

            The implicit value judgement behind the snarky comment was that philosophy has no immediate material benefit. The essence of this individual's argument against philosophical debates is rooted in productivism. You are either obtuse and disingenuous or simply too moronic to parse basic argumentation.

            [...]
            You assume that poverty, tyranny and genocide are unethical, which is itself something that has to be demonstrated as part of the field of ethics. How society ought to be organized is self-evidently consequent to anterior notions of what is the good.

            by denying the self-evident nature of "Do not kill".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He neither affirmed nor denied what you consider self-evident there.
            I cannot speak for the poster, but is he is probably attempting to use the Socratic tradition with those that do not follow it. The definition of "politics" and "ethics" he is using is probably different from the modern popular usage of the words. He is probably using the Aristotelian definitions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most likely he never read the Greeks. He sounds like a run-of-the-mill pseud who desperately tries to cover up his lack of intellectual depth by questioning the most self-evident things. It's the most generic, the cringest and most redditesque larp. "Prove to me that 2+2=4. Prove to me that reality exists. Haha, I'm so le deep xD."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know, but Socrates did nearly the same thing in spite of the reputation he would garner in Athens, historical account whether true or false claim he was quite aware of that consequence and possible outcome while engaging in his dialogues.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nearly the same thing
            No, he didn't. Blatantly anti-intellectual larp scepticism by an uneducated teenager is not the same as the Socratic method. You'd know that if you actually started with the Greeks.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No one here ever argued in favor of genocide
            I did. Genocide is not only ok; genociding inferior races is a moral duty and a service to the human race as a whole.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The users of this site would be the first ones purged

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >look at me being such an edgy ethical relativist trying to argue in favor of genocide
            Nah, frick off, kid. You will never be a true philosopher.

            This poster did: [...] by denying the self-evident nature of "Do not kill".

            Most likely he never read the Greeks. He sounds like a run-of-the-mill pseud who desperately tries to cover up his lack of intellectual depth by questioning the most self-evident things. It's the most generic, the cringest and most redditesque larp. "Prove to me that 2+2=4. Prove to me that reality exists. Haha, I'm so le deep xD."

            >nearly the same thing
            No, he didn't. Blatantly anti-intellectual larp scepticism by an uneducated teenager is not the same as the Socratic method. You'd know that if you actually started with the Greeks.

            Looks like the atheist is throwing a temper tantrum because he doesn't want to follow the logical conclusion of his own beliefs. Unfortunately for you, Plato wrote several dialogues that explore ethical issues in order to defend conventional morality from sophistic immoralism and constructed an entire system of metaphysics to undergird his ethics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You misunderstand. I mocked you for writing your thesis on black trans autistic girls not because it's unproductive, but because it makes you a homosexual.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Being a homosexual is certainly bad, but you have not really demonstrated why it would be so.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is neither good nor bad. It merely is. You are one.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is clearly an implicit value judgement in your statement. Don't be a coward and defend your beliefs and claims, homosexual.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong on all points. You fundamentally failed to understand how science works.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            classical sociologist moron take. No one argues that we will perfectly know everything. Science only helps in making more accurate predictions. If you'd studied something of value then you would have realized this in the first semester.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What does it mean for something to have "value"?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >le question everything
            who cares about your dumb ass pseudo socratic shit. people can live and function without having to define every single word. You either know very well what is meant with value without me ever having to define it, or you really are too far gone in your philosophical masturbation that you really forgot what it's like to have a normal functioning brain.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By normal functioning brain you of course mean walking about in life as an NPC without any capacity for critical thought and self-contemplation, simply executing your instinctual intuitions without ever considering if they are truly intrinsically meaningful or the source thereof.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            maybe you should use your grand critical thinking skills to analyse whether you are a pretentious moron or not

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your being a drooling moron with too stunted of a mental development to engage with difficult questions has no bearing on myself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >le hecking difficult questions of society!
            Black person, don't you think developing the technology you are using to post your moronic shit on this website required greater mental capacity than posing vague questions on vague topics?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, no it did not. As actual empirical data has already demonstrated, there are in fact different forms of intelligence despite the overall correlation of aptitude across various domains. Specialization is of course key for societal prosperity, but you anon seem to suffer from overspecialization, where you are an utterly hopeless moronic homosexual whenever you step out of your own field where you are comfortable. Not all STEMgays are like this of course, and many are quite intellectually curious and pursue philosophy on the side, showing there is absolutely no excuse for how much of a dilettante you are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >different forms of intelligence
            Sorry sweaty but IQ is the only objective definition of intelligence. Your twerking skills, your number of followers on tiktok or your ability to consume huge amounts of alcohol do not constitute "intelligence". If you can't do simple math you are dumb. No amount of postmodern anti-intellectual seething will change this fact.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Sorry sweaty but IQ is the only objective definition of intelligence.
            The g-factor is just the mathematical value of the correlation between different domains of cognition. You haven't actually read any papers on the psychometric study of intelligence, have you?

            >No amount of postmodern anti-intellectual seething will change this fact.
            It's actually kind of cute you think you're representing the side of intellectualism here, lol.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            None of this contradicts my post. IQ is the method of quantifying g.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And g is quantified through statistical regression analysis of verbal, memory and visuospatial intelligence, and psychometrics has done extensive analyses of population differences in terms of varying domains of intelligence, whether it is sex or race. Women for instance have a higher verbal intelligence on average than men, who conversely have a greater visuospatial intelligence. Your denial of different forms of intelligence is just fricking embarrassing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >women have a higher verbal intelligence
            Lmao simp. Why are all the great authors and philosophers male, huh?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, are you really that illiterate that you don't know what the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is? Men's standard IQ deviation is greater than women's, so the number of men at the tail ends of the respective bell curve is *greater* than in women. Women are mediocre, whereas men are exceptional, whether in terms of intelligence or whatever else -- that is why the dumbest people in society are always men and the smartest are always men too.

            Please read some actual literature on this:
            https://randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x
            https://largescaleassessmentsineducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40536-015-0015-x
            https://largescaleassessmentsineducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775718307714
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453003000891

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the IQ test has different sections. No, they are not completely separate intelligences. As you already admitted by mentioning g, they are correlated due to being different aspects of the underlying general intelligence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nice parody, if that's what you were going for

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not a problem because philosophy is not about truth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have read nothing of philosophy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Damn. How are you people this poorly educated? I really blows my mind the shit some of you people say…

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is what being a STEMcel does to your brain. There wouldn't be "mathematics", nor science without some grounding in philosophical concepts and understandings.
        >Math proves
        Implying there is a "truth" to its claims... which requires a philosophical basis on what exactly "truth" is and how it can be "proved".

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >just realized something that Aristotle realized 2300 years ago
    this is why you should have started with the Greeks
    >and Aristotle thought this was a good thing since philosophy was noble in itself and not because it was a means to an end

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're right in thinking that politics is the prime (if not sole) application of philosophy but it's also the case that almost every philosophical work has politics as it's goal albeit oftentimes not overtly so.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In an ideal society, these subjects would be left to the learned few. That society, however, is not ours.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy Black folk are all c**ts who end up working in advertising which they hate or as high school teachers.
    >"but it's not about the money it's about knowledge and development"
    Biggest cope from philosophy graduates who drink their lives away and struggle to form meaningful connections with people because they constantly need to flex philosophy skills, which they obviously can't do at work. You're just setting up a rope to have a nice day with not developing your mind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Philosophical enlightenment is its own reward.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can get that without going to college though.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      unironically a philosophy degree is a waste of time and money. There is literally nothing you can gain from it that you cannot get by just reading and thinking.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reading fiction is for kids

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    go watch basketball or something

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You only think this because you fell for the "start with the greeks" memes. Philosophy is a very broad field and things like epistemology only constitute a small piece of it, that's all more like the philosophy of philosophy than regular, played-straight philosophy and it's really dumb that we push it so much.

    You at least are aware of political philosophy but there is also a world of philosophy about language, art, media, and just insights into every day phenomenon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >phenomenon
      *phenomena, moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes that is undeniable proof that I was born mentally impaired, you caught me red-handed.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any applied philosophy would necessarily follow from first principles. You can’t say what’s good until you can say what good is.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what's good: me

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You can’t say what’s good until you can say what good is.
      This is obviously not true.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          because we evolved to find certain things good simply based on how they feel to us because they probably promise some sort of advantage in survival, so we don’t even know why exactly some things are good, we just trust in it and call it good, which is why you have anons like the one you’re responding to who will invent mental gymnastics to say what I’m saying but with less emphasis on the whole evolutionary biology part.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which is why you have anons like the one you’re responding to who will invent mental gymnastics to say what I’m saying but with less emphasis on the whole evolutionary biology part.
            Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a strange question. I’m just pointing out that people are oblivious to what they are and will latch on to the most vague delusions to explain what they do not know.
            >things are good because… they just are OK?! If you question what good is then you’re just le heckin psychopath!!!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >says things are good because they provide us an unconsciously perceived advantage
            Fricking epic man

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            pretty much. everyone wants to do it, so there can't just be one group of people who do it, that wouldn't be fair

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You atheist morons always resort to some fake evolutionary mandate. If it really was an evolutionary mandate, that wouldn’t even mean it was “good”. You people are fricking idiots, sincerely.

            Because people do it all the time, you fricking moron. You've never heard a child say "ice cream is good" without having first written a dissertation on the fundamental nature of good? No one even has an actual answer, anyway. It all just comes back to a brute declaration.

            You are the moron. That people do something, does not mean necessarily that they’re justified in doing it. These questions are fundamentally about the justification of what is done. That I do something is not proof that is good to do, and to even talk about whether what people do is good or not presupposes a a conception of what the good is. That people inherit these from their culture and traditions is a totally moot point. How did you fail to grasp that a thing is not good just because it’s done and if what’s done is good that is just begging the question? How dumb are you? Even the question you gave is framed as if good is necessarily what’s pleasurable, but that’s not even what good means. That a child says it is good doesn’t mean it really is good. I’m actually triggered rn by how dumb some of you are.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because people do it all the time, you fricking moron. You've never heard a child say "ice cream is good" without having first written a dissertation on the fundamental nature of good? No one even has an actual answer, anyway. It all just comes back to a brute declaration.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can say your mom gives a good rimjob and she never asked me for philosophical clarification from first principles

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you mean? Truth, goodness, and beauty have been philosophized about forever, these things are important. All these things are objective, and coincidentally everything I find to be true, good, and beautiful, are objectively true, good, and beautiful, and if you disagree then you just lack rationality.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a waste of time
    Is it? Sounds like a subject for philosophical discussion.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trying to separate philosophy and politics is losing proposition.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i just realized you belong here more than i do, how should we proceed?

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scientist here. I'm sorry. Every time I see a philosophy thread it reminds me that my scientific methodology is guilty of having made philosophy obsolete. Science crushed the pipedreams of thousands of pseuds who mistakenly believed they could discover deep truths about reality by merely sitting in their armchair. I apologize for science being so much more successful at finding objective truth.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      conjecture: i don't know why this is popular

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homies with philosophy degrees be like
      >yeah I'm a miserable c**t who can't find a job and is too insufferable to make any friends but look at this quote Einstein said about how philosophy is important for scientists or something that's literally me I'm the based heckin philosophy guy he was talking about!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's not the degree that matters

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It certainly should be. It's not like you're getting any self-fulfillment from it. It would be one thing if you philosophy graduates were actually happy and felt fulfilled but no, you're all miserable depressive c**ts so not only are you not getting money for your efforts but you're also not living a more fulfilling life. You're just miserable, poor buttholes at the end of the day.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            c**ts like you who think life is about being fulfilled lost the plot a long time ago

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what you believe in but honestly, I respect your response. You're the first philosophycuck I've seen who has the balls to make an argument like that. All the others try to preach to me about how philosophy isn't about making money but about self-development and fulfillment.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you have some advanced studies in shitting out niglet bastards and trying to find guys to raise the fricking abominations?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're a moron. if you have ever been in a room with 150 IQ philosophy nerds you will realize they can ask for anything and get it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't get shit. You're all brokie homosexuals lmao. Please, I want you to look me in the eyes and tell me that the majority of philosophycucks aren't broke ass Black folk living lonely and miserable lives. I want to hear you say this isn't a reality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you even have a degree? or just job training? your wife is lonely, btw, go pay attention to her and stop worrying about who might be less happy than you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Notice how you completely side stepped the question? I expect nothing less from you philosophycucks. When confronted with reality you need to philosophize your way out of your miserable failures.

            You're all miserable hacks. where are you friends and family and deep emotional connections with people, homosexual? Where are you children? Where is your economic success? Nowhere. You have literally nothing but your meaningless babble that only serves to make you more miserable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you live? I'd be more than happy to meet you face to face.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lol... and then she actually does it.

            Once again you don't even attempt to deny anything I say and are instead trying to deflect. Deep down you know I'm right, you're exactly the type of person I'm talking about but since you wasted your life pursuing this meaningless drivel you feel the need to fight back.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            alright bro, you won the mile. i'm a useless philosophy cuck who doesn't remember why you're still here

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You said you wanted someone to look you in the eyes. Where do you live?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you need to know where that anon lives, it's really more of a look

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I would not say I need to know where that anon lives. The anon wants someone to look them in the eyes. By saying more of a look are you implying my text is conveying a tonality that is at a jarring juxtaposition to to the situation or that there is an adherence to what one might perceive to be a style? At the end of the day it is what you do after graduating with any degree that determines income and consumption habits that determine whether one is broke. The anon is seemingly bent on behaving like a female so perhaps there is some specific way of saying this the female would understand.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            look at it this way, if i told you being married and going to work every day while raising kids would send you to hell, and you saw people doing it, would you get mad?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I would be prone to apathy in this scenario since I do not believe there is a hell and I am wholly unconcerned with other people's marital and child arrangements. Is the question being posed in this way to lead me to a conclusion about this anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so you're an butthole too huh?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Based on the sheer number of times I have been called that in my life I suppose one could make a case for this. Now I freely admit I am cognizant of my tendencies, but I am also not particularly inclined to sit idle and watch the anon harangue philosophy posters with no seemingly valid reason in mind. I will say this then to the aggrieved anon, if you are reading this, you seem to want to target philosophy posters, I am not entirely sure why, and if you are looking for some sort of answer I am not entirely sure what you are hoping to find, if you respond to this post in a timely manner I can assure you that you will have my undivided attention and that I will give your comment due consideration. If you are simply looking to target philosophy posters, you are more than welcome to target me, you can speak you mind as you wish.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lol... and then she actually does it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you live?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Frick off you moronic female c**t

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's funny how all these ""people'" preach about how monwy isn't everything and rich people are le bad but the moment you decide to actually walk such a path NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST NOT DEDICATE YOUR LIFE TO PILING UP CASH NOOOOOOOOOO

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Robbing stores is a good idea. Food is a need not a want

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Philosophy could have made you not a homosexual frogposter

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even Newton shat on the scientific method. Only thing you’ve done is torture rats for grant funding ad infinitum.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >oh no no no, not the heckin raterino

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Science IS philosophy you absolute buffoon

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >astronomy IS astrology

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You actually thought that was a refutation? It’s a totally nonsensical strawman that does not even make use of the same logic I implied earlier. If anything, it just really affirms how lost you really that you think these are analogous.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It seems to be a good refutation because you're seething and unable to defend your (wrong and moronic) post. Here's another one for you
            >chemistry IS alchemy

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It seems to be a good refutation because you're seething and unable to defend your (wrong and moronic) post. Here's another one for you
          >chemistry IS alchemy

          Astronomy was founded on astrology and chemistry was founded on alchemy, and similar to both science necessitates an anterior prerequisite justification that is robust and sophisticated.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >justification that is robust and sophisticated
            There is nothing "robust and sophisticated'" about trial and error. Even monkeys are doing it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can you be certain that empirical observation is a valid epistemologic method? How can you be certain that your inductive endeavours aren't based on invalid sampling methodology? How can you be certain of the information observed by your own senses?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you trying to make a point on how useless philosophy is for science? Because philosophy consistently failed to answer these questions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If philosophy couldn't answer those questions, then science is completely fricking hopeless lmao.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >science is fricked because philosocucks are too low IQ to understand it
            Lmao, this cope is hilarious

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How can you be certain that empirical observation is a valid epistemologic method?
            by looking at the predictions and how accurate they are, dumbass. In another post it was already stated that it doesn't matter if it is "true" or not, as long as the predictions are getting more accurate using the theory. We can compare our predictions to actual observed values, even though there are errors in both. This is the way to evaluate the methods.
            > How can you be certain that your inductive endeavours aren't based on invalid sampling methodology
            certainty doesn't matter.

            it's called statistics

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moron thread full of morons arguing which of the genres they don't read anyway is le winning team

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Won't ever stop reading philosophy
    Won't stop posting bout philosophy
    Won't stop thinkin bout philosophy
    I'm just not gonna that's all

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What have you been reading?

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects arouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, however, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty which is the true answer to the doubts that it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities, which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every field of philosophy except Logic is just people jerking themselves and others off

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read a book about the Mo-Pai lineage started by Mo-Tzu, the greatest rival to Confucius, and by reading between the lines I was able to learn how to gather chi effectively. I gathered so much that I physically burned a hole in a seat covering using the chi on accident. Now I'm looking for a proper teacher to guide me as I continue down this path of the internal arts with the ultimate goal of becoming spiritually immortal.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Politics is just applied ethics, and ethics is just applied metaphysics (and epistemology). You're doing nothing but proving how intellectually impoverished you are -- all political claims are inherently impregnated with implicit ethical and metaphysical presuppositions that all have to be individually justified due to their mutually imbricated and complementary nature. People that bloviate at length about politics but will not touch the metaphysical and metaethical foundations thereof are worthless and disgusting dilettantes, useless morons. You can tell the OP and all like alike him are but insecure weaklings lashing out in order to compensate for their lack of confidence in their own convictions and beliefs; they can effectively cognize the lacunae and shortcomings of their worldview, but lack the maturity and self-awareness to elaborate upon these weakness as to buttress it and refine it to more intellectually respectable form. Kids playing with LEGOs, is what they are.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You said a lot of words, but you need to focus on gathering chi. How else will you become spiritually immortal? You studying Western Philosophy is like playing with legos compared to what Chinese Philosophy can teach you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You got it backwards. The only reason we think about ethics, epistemology, metaphysics etc. is to apply it and come up with sound politics.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hierarchies of values are almost always inversions of hierarchies of practical priorities. Man's initial reason for embarking on metaphysical and ethical rumination are irrelevant because the truly virtuous and intelligent man recognizes that intellectual growth and refinement culminates in and is consummated with the realization that one's initial, transient concerns are childish nonsense when compared to the pursuit of higher, transcendental truths; the sage initiates his journey towards the divine by parochially contemplating the matters of the worldly realm, but through rumination, questioning one's priors and intellectual refinement, the wise man recognizes that politics is an inferior subject to matters of higher importance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Politics is just applied ethics
      Stopped reading right there. Poverty, tyranny, war and genocide are the opposite of ethics.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WHAT IS IS
    I AM WHO I AM

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The philosophers have hitherto have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You are right that philosophy is pointless. It got replaced with science, a much superior method for trying to gain the truth about the universe:
    >Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
    - Stephen Hawking

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High IQ OP.
    Philosophy appears to be a contest of who can dig themself into the deepest hole.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Spoken like someone who's read very little philosophy.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I just realised philosophy (outside of political philosophy or philosophy that can be applied politically) is esssentially a waste of time and you'll learn far more reading fictional literature.
    That is, ironically, a philosophical statement, one which contradicts itself. You're saying that your own post is a waste of time.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s recently started to bother me a lot and make me very angry that even people who hang out on a literature board know basically nothing. You all believe and assert with such confidence complete bullshit. I mean, everyone knows the modern education system is a complete failure and normies are inundated with nonsense 24/7 but how is it that people who care about literature enough to hang out on a board for it are so obviously wrong? It defies the logic they think science has made obsolete.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >outside of political philosophy or philosophy that can be applied politically
    why do people keep acting like politics is the most important subject? It's the one area where knowledge has the least impact on you or your close one's life. Pretty much any knowledge is more useful for the average person.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    philosophy is like superstition, human brain is not a completely rational machine that negates weird flaws. like praying or OCD behavior we have that we know does not make sense that we cannot get rid of, philosophy even though it offers to real use stays here.

    but over time lost too much value because it has been emptied out of its abilities to cure sick of their spiritual worries, psychologists covered that grift. and explaining the nature part is taken by science.

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