In math and science there is progress and answers.

In math and science there is progress and answers.

In philosophy there is 2500 years of intellectual masturbation and nothing more

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ecce homosexual could quite possibly be the most masterbatory book ever written.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The answer of philosophy is that everyone should commit suicide

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just the same as with novels and self-help books. Curious hmmmm

    • 4 months ago
      Cult of Passion

      Nah, the thing about self help is you actually have to...

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only someone who’s never seriously engaged with philosophy would say this. I know the perfect philosopher and the perfect book which would enlighten you on this subject assuming you had the intelligence to comprehend it but I shall not share it with you on account of your immodest scientism. No point tossing pearls to pigs.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Underage b8

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    philosophy is essential to science and culture in ways you don't understand. it is a culture's philosophy that sets the stage whether there will be a scientific flourishing or for what political system one would be ruled by.

    think about how the enlightenment eroded the justification of monarchical systems until what few remain have little to no power. the philosophical justification that held them up changed form.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      We were a thousand times better off in the monarchy, democracy is satanism in disguise

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        you're not unique or edgy when you say this. society is crammed full of people eager to crawl under a boot.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he actually thinks modern democracy upholds personal liberty

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks monarchy is the answer to that

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is true
    descartes was a disaster for the split between science and philosophy

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Descartes was the basedest. He solved the mind body problem.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        What? How did Descartes solve the mind body problem?
        I think he formulated the problem and made a paradigm out of it, but didn't solve it.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cartesian dualism is the only acceptable answer

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's not the answer, you just take a mind-body problem and call "dualism".

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You might find this book interesting. It's essentially about how pragmatism is inherently less limiting than idealism but in the perspective of buddhism.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Math is philosophy

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know why people still bother with philosophy when Nagarjuna already refuted all philosophical positions

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nagarjuna just copied Pyrrhonism while adding a Buddhist garnish to his nihilistic sophistry.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You know who Pyrrho copied yes

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    math and science have gotten us precisely nowhere as far as how we should organize ourselves as human beings, or how we should live. Progress is an illusion and there are no answers, least of all without questions. If you picked up a history (or dare I say it, philosophy) book once in a while you might have picked up on that.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >uses mathematics to form military economy
      >uses science to develop cluster bombs
      >drone strokes you while you wonder if the sun is evil or not

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You moron. While you were developing weapons I was busy understanding the fundamental nature of reality, leading me to develop a solid rational, in turn suggesting that I subvert your people and have them rebel against you in myself by another name.
        Might makes right after all brainlet.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    YOU FRICKING moron YOUR VERY IDEA OF PROGRESS WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY PHILOSOPHY ON A SILVER PLATTER AND YOU HAVE THE FRICKING GALL TO ACT LIKE IT JUST APPEARED TO MODERN SCIENTISTS ONE DAY WHILE THEY WERE LOOKING THROUGH A MICROSCOPE AAAAAAAAAAAAAA FRICK OFF TO REDDIT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    All science is posited on philosophy. In fact it is really a method philosophy. The Greeks did not distinguish between the two.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      you don't really need evidence and experimentation in philosophy, which is the whole basis of science.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Evidence and experimentation are inherently philosophical methods. The distinction between the two is due to practical and historical reasons. Science is the most successful method of philosophy.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >in the past some philosophers had (uneducated) opinions about science
      >therefore my infantile "what if reality doesn't real" platitudes are just as rigorous as relativistic astrothermodynamics
      Why do philosocucks always commit intellectual property theft?

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    And look where math and science progress got us

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think industrial society and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race!

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Without philosophy, science and mathematics would simply be reality without an observer. A planet without life. What's the point of an amusement park if there's no one to enjoy the rides?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Show me one thing philosophy added to science. I'm waiting.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        reread what I wrote, and tell me what you think it meant

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You posted nonsense. Enjoyment has nothing to do with philosophy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, you're right

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            you should probably get checked for autism

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I got checked. I am officially certified non-autistic.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            you read it too literally

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ethics, son.
        The foundational principles underlying the system of peer review, non-tampering of data, regard for life.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >no ethical problem ever solved by philosophy
          >philosophers can't even justify something as simple as "you should not kill"
          Any random person on the street is a better source for ethical advice than a philosopher. Philosophy has zero authority to claim over ethics.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no ethical problem is ever solved by philosophy
            In the same way that no material problem is every finally solved by science. There are improvements and more informed guesses, which are all that can be realistically be expected.

            You can't treat scientists as fallable and limited human beings and then turn around and expect philosophers to be actual Boddhisattvas.

            >but they can't tell me why though shalt not kill
            >the man on the street can do better
            the man on the street is even less able to explain what is thou shalt not kill, let alone Why thou shalt not kill.

            The man on the street, on his own, would have only situational ethics, and the only governing principle for society would be power. That's basically DR Congo. Not good.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a man in a cave can do better than scientists
            >two bowls of flour and a spoonful of yeast makes bread; who needs to do titration?
            >rubbing two sticks makes fire; who needs to know about oxidation?
            >we already got an abacus to count beans and pigs; who needs the Ln of anything?
            >scientists have contributed nothing to bakery and cookfires and pigcounting.

            Professional practitioners go for a higher degree of specific accuracy than is immediately useful in the street, but is necessary for society beyond the bone age.

            Show me an ethical problem a philosopher is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street. I can show you hundreds of math and physics questions only mathematicians and physicists can answer.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            How about you just frick off back to IQfy or IQfy or wherever it is you came from because I'm fed up of dumb homosexuals like you thinking they understand philosophy it's like me reading the wiki page on physics and thinking I am einstein fricking homosexual kys

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your lying appeals to authority have no power here. It's easy to show that you are not a physicist. A simple undergrad problem you cannot solve is sufficient. Analogously, it is easy to show that you have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. You repeatedly failed to provide an example of an ethical question where a philosopher has an advantage over a non-philosopher. We can safely assume that I am more educated with respect to philosophy than you.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just came into this thread to tell you to frick off, I'm not that other anon and I do not care about you or your opinions. It is not my job to justify philosophy to you, its utility is obvious to those that read it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your kneejerk reaction only confirms my point. Philosophists like you know as much about philosophy as scientismists know about science, i.e. nothing. Wanna post some more insults? That's all you learned from 2500 years of academic discourse? Infantile insults? Lmao.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't need your permission to read philosophy. You're the one who thinks about it enough to make this thread and argue with people about it. It seems you are the infantile one.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't need your permission to read philosophy.
            I'm sure that's why you're so desperately begging for my attention. Nobody forced you to reply.

            >You're the one who thinks about it enough to make this thread and argue with people about it.
            I'm not OP.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow nice argument. Nobody forced you to reply to me either, yet here you are, desperately begging for the attention of a philosopher.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >of a philosopher
            The only philosopher ITT am I. You already admitted knowing nothing about the subject.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you should've said "is me".

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, I'm ESL.

            >You already admitted
            Where? Nice reading comprehension from the 200IQ scientist top kek.

            >Where?
            Here:

            I just came into this thread to tell you to frick off, I'm not that other anon and I do not care about you or your opinions. It is not my job to justify philosophy to you, its utility is obvious to those that read it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            And where exactly in this statement did I 'admit' anything? Or are you stupid?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the last sentence. Do you need more spoonfeeding (sigh) or do you see it now?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            > It is not my job to justify philosophy to you, its utility is obvious to those that read it.
            Where do I say 'I admit'? Are you stupid?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You admitted implicitly by posting something self-contradictory without even noticing.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            and where is the contradiction? or are you stupid?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You already admitted
            Where? Nice reading comprehension from the 200IQ scientist top kek.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Random guys on the streets have been trusted with ethical, moral, and political issues for the last few centuries in a beautiful system of representative democracy, and we went from enlightenment to putting kids on hormone blockers. Damn if only some greek bro 2500 years ago said something about it and we listened...I guess Bill Nye The Science Guy is more trustworthy after all, he has science in the name

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >implying representative democracy cares what people on the street are saying
            Lmao. You are clearly not a philosopher. Hormone treatment for kids is exclusively pushed by institutions not under the control of the people.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >show me an ethical problem that a philosopher is more qualified than a street guy to answer

            A street guy will put a couple minutes of brainpower into an ethical question; most likely he would not even think of that ethical question.

            A philosopher of ethics spends years going down that specific rabbit hole.

            Assuming they are of equal intelligence, the difference will be work and experience.

            Ask me to make a table, I can probably make it. But my clone who spent the last twenty years making will be more intimately acquainted with materials, center of balance, methods. His table will likely be more solid, more level, with additional functions.

            I'm a man with ketchup stains on my shirt from falling asleep eating nuggies. Put me back in time and I can never have predicted the failure of religion and art and the insufficiency of science to sustain morality like Nietzsche did. Yes, the problem is not solved, but surely you can appreciate it is a feat just predicting the problem.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can show me no math or physics questions that are absolutely answered. All science answers are on AFAIK basis, waiting to be disproved.

            The biggest boast you can make is you are *mostly* very sure. As I have previously mentioned, the status of Pluto.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can show me no math or physics questions that are absolutely answered.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theorems
            All of these are proven. You have no idea how math is done, do you?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The page you linked also includes Conjectures, which are still require more proof, and remajn open to disproval. If Conjectures are a subset of theorems, as here, then theorems are not absolutely true, just AFAWK true.

            Case study.

            Euclid's fifth Principle was debated for 2000 years before Ican'trememberwho (at least two fellers, independently) arrived on the solution of curved planes. Euclid is foundational for architecture, without being absolutely proven for 2000 years. The most that could be said of it was that it seemed to work very very well. Thus, math can still be very functional as an observationally derived algorithm without being fully understood. In other words, you can know how to math and yet not /know/ math.

            Again, AFAWK basis.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uncertainty principle
            That's a proven theorem about non-commutative operators.

            >conjectures
            I didn't read the whole list. There's a lot of theorems in that list though, thus disproving

            You can show me no math or physics questions that are absolutely answered. All science answers are on AFAIK basis, waiting to be disproved.

            The biggest boast you can make is you are *mostly* very sure. As I have previously mentioned, the status of Pluto.

            who claimed there was no settled math.

            >Euclid's fifth principle
            Is an axiom, not a theorem. Learn the difference.

            >I can't remember who (at least two fellers, independently)
            Lobachevsky and Bolyai

            >without being fully understood
            Euclidean geometry is fully understood. It is a complete, effective and consistent theory in first oder logic.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no settled math anon
            er. *raise hand*
            thas me.

            >Lobachevsky and bolyai
            Thems the fellers.

            >theorems in list
            >theorem means math is fully settled
            I see. Precluded by definition. Ok.

            >learn the difference between axiom and theorem
            I did refer to Euclid's fifth as a principle, not a theorem. I know they are different.

            Page says an axiom is held as absolutely evident, which Euclid's fifth wasn't for 2000 years. This is what I mean by math not being stable.

            >theorems still are absolutely proven tho
            Per picrel: theorems are true within the parameters of certain assumptions. This is also what I mean by math not being certain: a formula that only works between (here) and (there).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            add:

            >Euclid is fully understood
            Not until them two bright fellers; a 2000 year running argument is not what most people would call absolutely understood.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me an ethical problem that a scientist is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street. If you're going to say that it's not a scientists job, then whose? Nobody's? So ethics is just a fun free-for-all? Shall we start dismantling courts today since people are so obviously capable of governing themselves?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me an ethical problem that a scientist is more qualified to answer than a random guy on the street.
            Pic rel.

            >If you're going to say that it's not a scientists job, then whose? Nobody's? So ethics is just a fun free-for-all?
            Exactly.

            >Shall we start dismantling courts today since people are so obviously capable of governing themselves?
            That would actually be an improvement. But your reasoning is flawed. Courts are not deciding based on ethics. They are deciding based on mostly unethical laws made by rich people.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh we got ebin anarchist in da house, carry on this guy is too powerful, he rejects stuff!

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            well done, I'm convinced, you have proven philosophy a hollow and pointless enterprise.

            There is no point in your being here any more.

            >but I need to tell you your dumm
            Thus showing that for all the math you know your human life suffers a want of meaning.

            >I find meaning in telling you your dumm
            >questioning your presuppositions
            >arguing you BTFO
            So....the Socratic method? Philosophic bedrock? This is what happens when one fails to start with the Greeks.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not even arguing against philosophy as a whole. Only ethics and "philosophy of science" are bullshit. Philosophy of mind is valid, though it's mostly solved. Metaphysics is okay too, but belongs to physics nowadays.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is "philosophy of science" bullshit?
            If it's bullshit then science is bullshit too, because science is based on the philosophy of science, but your claim is that science is not bullshit, right?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How is "philosophy of science" bullshit?
            It's cringe and unnecessary. Science works irregardless of whether some midwitted pseuds fail to understand how it works.

            >If it's bullshit then science is bullshit too, because science is based on the philosophy of science
            Science has never been based on philosophy. Scientific methodology has its origins several millennia before "philosophy" was a thing and progressed independently. In fact, the only thing philosophy ever did to science was to hold it back by insane ideology throughout the dark ages.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >irregardless
            hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Science works irregardless of whether some midwitted pseuds fail to understand how it works.
            Ok, describe how it works. That description is philosophy of science.
            I think you're confused about what is part of what and about definitions.
            You can substitute "thinking" instead of "philosophy" because that's what it basically is.
            So saying that thinking is bullshit or comparing science to thinking doesn't make sense.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ok, describe how it works.
            You should have learned the scientific method in highschool. I'm sorry to hear about your lack of education.

            >That description is philosophy of science.
            Absolutely not.

            >You can substitute "thinking" instead of "philosophy" because that's what it basically is.
            Lmao, no. Hilarious cope. You redefine philosophy as a synonym for thinking so you can claim credit for literally everything. The invention of toilet paper was philosophy. The production of porn is philosophy. Hahaha. Intellectual property theft. That's what you're doing.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you don't get it.
            I'm not really requesting the description of how science works.
            I'm saying that if you describe how science works, that description will belong to philosophy of science.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >le every description is le philosophy
            Why are you so proud of not knowing what philosophy is?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.

            Is this not the purpose of science? Science is just a subset, a method of philosophy. Where do you think the scientific method came from? Science' only purpose is the discovery of truth. The literal purpose of philosophy. You just dislike other philosophical methods and only subscribe to the scientific form of philosophy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Science is just a subset, a method of philosophy.
            False. Philosophy is a subset of science.

            >Where do you think the scientific method came from?
            17th century alchemists wanted their experimental results to be repeatable.

            >Science' only purpose is the discovery of truth.
            True. That's why science is better than philosophy.

            >The literal purpose of philosophy.
            False. Many philosophers actively hate truth or deny its existence.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            > if you describe how science works, that description will belong to philosophy of science.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you accurately describe how science works then that's basic science education. If you feel unwarrantedly smug over a grossly oversimplified, midwitted and inaccurate description of science then it's philosophy of science.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're one of those people who hate philosophy while not knowing what it is, and struggle admitting that the description of how science works belongs to philosophy of science.

            Just think about it. Science is based on something that is not science.

            It's not science all the way down.

            Maybe you thought that you've got all figured out by saying "science rules, and everything else sucks", but as you see, it's time to move on, otherwise you get stuck in this "science rules" phase.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you're one of those people who hate philosophy
            I don't hate philosophy, I only hate "philosophy of science". Nice lack of reading comprehension.

            >Just think about it. Science is based
            Yes.

            >on something that is not science.
            Nope.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            you said that yourself.
            > If you accurately describe how science works then that's basic science education.
            is "basic science education" itself science? no. so science is based on something that is not science.
            science is not everything, it's just a tool.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's based on IQ and common sense, i.e. the opposite of "philosophy of science".

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's based on IQ and common sense
            almost there, the last step is realizing that philosophy deals with common sense, it's philosophy's job to figure out what common sense says.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Philosophy is a subset of science

            Ok troll or literal moron no point in further engaging

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logic is math, metaphysics belongs to quantum physics, philosophy of mind has been solved, ethics is not philosophy at all but just common sense.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >philosophy of mind has been solved
            what do you mean?
            what is the solution then?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cartesian dualism

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's not a solution, that's just a restatement of the problem.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ethics is bs
            Ethics are the only thing stopping your highest, nichest specialists from fabricating data and lying for a Nobel Prize. It is the motivation behind the practice of peer review. The love of truth /is/ ethics.

            Ethics are also the basis of laws and updates of laws. Not useless.

            As I have said before, without ethics informing laws politics and every other human relation, society quickly collapses into Machiavellian power games, DR Congo. You are only able to say ethics are useless because it works so well so pervasively in your society you don't even notice it. Eating the fruit without seeing the root.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you OP?

            you better not be. That Black person blanket dissed all philosophy, not just ethics.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why should I act morally?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a man in a cave can do better than scientists
            >two bowls of flour and a spoonful of yeast makes bread; who needs to do titration?
            >rubbing two sticks makes fire; who needs to know about oxidation?
            >we already got an abacus to count beans and pigs; who needs the Ln of anything?
            >scientists have contributed nothing to bakery and cookfires and pigcounting.

            Professional practitioners go for a higher degree of specific accuracy than is immediately useful in the street, but is necessary for society beyond the bone age.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >philosophy cannot solve this moral dilemma
            But philosophy does offer a ton of deontological systems with arguments to support it
            >YEAH BUT WHICH ONE IS ROIGHT
            Test it, apply it in the form of a law and see the results. Almost like, I dunno, science does. Hypothesis, experiment, acceptance or rejection.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Test infinity, apply it in the form a random guess

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you think science works, Black person? Physicists condict experiments that go nowhere all the time. Everything prior to an experiment is little more than an educated guess, an intuition.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >deontological
            Cringe. This is why we can't take philosophers' opinion on ethics seriously.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Science is just a subset, a method of philosophy.
            False. Philosophy is a subset of science.

            >Where do you think the scientific method came from?
            17th century alchemists wanted their experimental results to be repeatable.

            >Science' only purpose is the discovery of truth.
            True. That's why science is better than philosophy.

            >The literal purpose of philosophy.
            False. Many philosophers actively hate truth or deny its existence.

            >uses mathematics to form military economy
            >uses science to develop cluster bombs
            >drone strokes you while you wonder if the sun is evil or not

            > if you describe how science works, that description will belong to philosophy of science.

            Filtered

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sum up the thread's premise in one image. I'll start with pic related

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >progress
    increase in knowledge is not correlative to increase in the standard of living. Case in point, Radium.

    >answers
    Answers that are constantly updated are not answers. They are best guesses. Case in point, the status of Pluto.

    >philosophy is nothing but mental masturbation

    Science cannot tell you how to face death. Math cannot fix a broken marriage. Neither even begin to grapple with the tragedy of being.

    The practitioners of science usually begin from a presumption of ignorance or uncertainty. I don't think you are any kind of scientist.

    >philosophy is cope
    Look at you, using an unproven hypothesis like an axiom. If you were a student of the sciences you wouldn't; it is bad science. If you were a student of philosophy you still wouldn't; it is bad rhetoric. I propose it is the fault of neither science or philosophy; you are just a bad student.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ok if we consider science and philosophy a small part of life and focus on the bigger parts of people's life, eating, digesting, watching listening and enduring.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >increase in knowledge is not correlative to increase in the standard of living.
      Yet stagnation means just shitting under yourself, waiting for the entropy to increase.

      >Answers that are constantly updated are not answers. They are best guesses. Case in point, the status of Pluto.
      But some guesses are better than others. Pluto is better than Yuggoth.

      >Math cannot fix a broken marriage.
      But game theory can offer insights.
      >Neither even begin to grapple with the tragedy of being.
      Yet they are the source of that tragedy.
      A few thousand years ago, you thought that you were at the center of the universe, the most perfect creation, that the Sky Daddy loved.
      Now God is dead, and the debates are on whether 'you' are not a zombie, and why the Fermi Paradox exists.

      >using an unproven hypothesis like an axiom
      It's called a hypothetico-deductive model. And so far the case is, that science delivers, and philosophy retreats.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >some guesses are better than others.
        Not saying they aren't, but OP was saying science offers answers. Come back with that mf goalpost.

        >game theory can offer insights
        When philosophy offers insights it gets called wordwank non-answers. Make up your neuron.

        >yet philosophy is the source of the tragedy of being

        If you understand religion as an invention, it was invented to address an already strange and dangerous universe. It does not originate tragedy, it was a response. You are either trolling or sleep deficient.

        >a hypodeductive model
        So, a framework bounded by assumptions. Like a philosophy.

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Discrete mathematics eternally btfo'd philosophy
    >Its an incredibly obvious and scientifically useful concept
    >Doesn't exist for 4000 years because it had no material need
    >No one even thought about it
    >Massivaly explodes in just a few decades when a material need for it arises
    Tldr philosophy and the limits of human thought is downstream from scientific progress.

  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I would like you to crack open some Levinas, Ricoeur, Althusser, Deleuze, or Baudrillard and compare it to Plato and tell me that it hasn’t progressed at all. You are just philosophically illiterate and too moronic to be able to even discern the differences in the complexity of arguments and analytical methods. Likely you are a STEMgay who didn’t even take a single class on pure math either so what do you really know other than an assortment of equations and some derivation rules that you haven’t forgotten yet? You and your ilk will be replaced by AI in about 5-10 years. What will you have to prop up your bruised ego then?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      not anon, but AI that could replace majority B.Sc STEMs could probably create tailored psychological hugboxes.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I would like you to crack open some Levinas, Ricoeur, Althusser, Deleuze, or Baudrillard and compare it to Plato and tell me that it hasn’t progressed at all.
      This is the oppposite of progress.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not anon, but prove your assertion.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Plato was trying to make sense of the world. Continental "philosophers" are just trying to justify resentful violence.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are just philosophically illiterate and too moronic to be able to even discern the differences in the complexity of arguments and analytical methods

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I just see through the the illusion of this so-called complexity enough to understand what these works actually are.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then explain how Levinas who’s first philosophy is ethics is a justification of violence. Explain what a first philosophy even is. (Level: impossible)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Plato tried to understand the world
            >modern philosophers are just violence apologists.
            That is hardly fair. Plato's world was a house, a hole, a rowboat, and the forum.

            The modern philosophers live everywhere and everywhen at once in the internet.

            The natural world by itself is already violent; the human world adds the complexity of intelligence on top of that essential violence.

            I have not read any of the names mentioned, only braudrillard, and that barely. Even if they are all resentful and apologists for (qualified) violence, it is not obvious that they are certainly wrong.

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In philosophy there is 2500 years of intellectual masturbation and nothing more
    Okay, Kant.
    >In math and science there is progress and answers.
    From what I've seen there's more disagreement in science than a clear consensus these days. Maybe science can tell us what a woman is? kek

  23. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In math and science there is progress and answers.
    Answer to what?

  24. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lives in a peaceful, secure, generally respectful and ethical society which provides him with rights, protects his sovereignty, treats him as a dignified human individual, declares him free, grants him an opportunity to develop his interest within reason
    >as opposed to living as a slave in a war-torn, tyrannical rape capital treated like an object, abused and mocked, raped and beaten, forced to perform labor or starve
    "heh, philosophy accomplished nothing, based science gave me iPhone and Switch"

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You’re entirely correct anon, I don’t get how people arguing philosophical and theological studies have no value can’t recognize the benefits it has to society let alone themselves.

  25. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    neo-medievalization

  26. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is a clear Indication of underage tards infesting a once decent board. It wasn’t even this bad two years ago

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      two years ago there was guernongay pushing pamphlet tier Buddhism and oldgay anons moaning it was better in the good old days.

      there has been no change.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was there and the board was better for it

  27. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >charges into IQfy to say
    >/phil/<IQfy because /phil/≠/sci/
    Science deals with impersonal mechanics; philosophy deals with human meanings. You're comparing apples to applets.

    >but IQfy gives progress
    >/phil/ gives wordwank lol
    Come back when science has obtained human immortality and established a post-scarcity economy. Until then philosophy needed as a cope and a defense against bad memes.

    >lmao you're all BTFOTFO
    >all I got from here was wordwank
    >as expected
    >I am dealing with foetuses
    >as predicted
    Hey Einstein, philosophy is a IQfy province.
    IQfy doesn't read; (YOU) can't.

  28. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Contemporary philosophy is still valid though. The Greeks couldn't have possibly known about the modern day problems we would have.

  29. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    philosophy has circumscribed the boundaries of knowledge within which the sciences operate. had it not been for philosophy, you'd lack the narrative of "progress" you use to declare the supremacy of science, or a concrete definition of science. philosophy is the mother discourse, she gives birth to other discourses and raises them in their early years. that they strike out on their own isn't a mark of her failure, but a testament to her success.

  30. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    people don't go into philosophy and expect to cum at the end. it's patrician much like edging and tantric practice generally.

  31. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are early 2000s atheists so high test?

  32. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go suck a wiener nerd, it is WE, ethics board, who control YOU. good luck conducting an experiment without OUR approval.

  33. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine not being able to comprehend philosophy, maths, and science at the same time.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >still no counter-argument
      I accept your concession, OP.

  34. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    math and science have made good progress in destroying the planet and all of humanity in the long run, Great Filter awaits us, should’ve stayed in Eden dumbass

  35. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    My good homie, there's many schools of philosophy who agree with you. Believing science is the only thing truly giving us progress in the form of proving and describing realities about the natural world doesn't mean you should get rid of philosophy entirely, as engaging in science is indirectly engaging in philosophy.
    Materialists, physicalists, positivists, and most philosophers of science engage in "scientism", that is, believing science should be the main way of gaining knowledge of reality. I say this sincerely, open a book and stop being an edgy moron who bases his personality to be the epic science man but can't defend your position as to why you hold that to be true.

  36. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are engaging in philosophical reasoning when you argue that philosophy is useless.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, I engage only in metaphilosophy.

  37. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yet the only interesting questions are those of philosophy.
    Such is the state of the human mind: it can answer why a pig became a pig, but not why existence itself started, or if it started.

  38. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    test

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