Philosophers are wordcels aren't they
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
I mean this is just common sense, you don't need a 400 page book to understand this
They're just aristocrats who wrote long books pretending to be smart
philosophers are basically just schizophrenics
Mathematicians are wordcels aren't they
>a^n + b^n = c^n has no non-trivial integer solution for n>2
I mean this is just common sense, you don't need a 129 page paper to understand this
They're just aristocrats who wrote long papers pretending to be smart
[math](-1)^3 + (1)^3 = 0^3[/math]
this is a nontrivial solution. better luck next time, sweaty.
Looks trivial to me.
okay, since you're a moron i'll have to spell it out for you. what you wrote is not fermat's last theorem, moron.
I recommend you at least read the wikipedia page to familiarize yourself with the problem.
if you're going to try to generalize it, then generalize it correctly and permit n < -2 as well. but you didn't do that, and won't do it, because you don't understand what you're talking about.
Uh-oh my duderino! You forgot that a, b, AND c have to be non-zero positive numbers. I guess your argument falls down the drain because... it just does OK. I am a pedantic moron with elitism towards mathematics so I'm always right.
I'm sorry but you just dont get it :/
Maybe coloring books are more your tempo?
Oh, no, here come's a commie
No, you must work way above your ability and you get nothing. Be thankful.
WHAT COMES AFTER DEATH WHY DO WE EXIST LIFE IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS AAAAAHHH EXISTENTIALISM FR FR SOMETHING SOMETHINGISTIC SOMETHINGISM NUMBER THEORY BIG BANG AAHH I LOVE ARISTOTLE I NEED TO READ MORE THEEEEORY AAAAHHH KARL MARX BRUH FR FR INFINITY AND SHIT ZERO PLUS ZERO EQUALS ONE WERE LIVING IN A SIMULATION AHHH ALIENS FR FR THEORETICAL HYPOTHESIS AHHHAHAHAHA
Philosophers are cringy larpers. Some try to larp as logicians/mathematicians ("analytic philosophy "), others try to larp as linguists/writers ("postmodernists") and then there are some larping as neuroscientists ("philosophy of mind"). But all of them have in common that they look like immature children when compared to anyone actually knowledgeable in any of these fields.
>Philosophers are cringy larpers. Some try to larp as logicians/mathematicians ("analytic philosophy "), others try to larp as linguists/writers ("postmodernists") and then there are some larping as neuroscientists ("philosophy of mind"). But all of them have in common that they look like immature children when compared to anyone actually knowledgeable in any of these fields.
I'm right, you're wrong and you have no arguments.
Nevermind your teenage reddit debates about who's right and who's wrong. I just think it's disturbing how oblivious you and other npcs are as to the history and origins of their own way of thinking and system of values.
I'm well aware of the history of science and math. That's why I know that pseuds like you are artificially exaggerating the role of philosophy.
>I'm well aware of the history of science and math
Your post here says the opposite:
It's also pretty funny how you don't understand the sheer scale of your idiocy even after having your nose rubbed in it directly. Who said anything about sciecne and math?
That post doesn't say anything about the history of science and math. It only talks about the uselessness and cringiness of philosophers, which you once again confirm with your reply.
Anyway, I don't consider you human. I just find it funny that every opinion you will shart out in your life will be a dumbed down, 5th hand regurgitation of 19th and 20th century philosophy, but you're perfectly oblivious to it. You think this program you and other meatbots are running is some kind of inevitable "common sense", having no idea where it all actually came from. Embarrassing.
If I'm so dumb and can reach these alleged philosophical conclusions independently on my own, doesn't that confirm it's just trivial common sense? What merit do these philosophers have then, if all they did was stating the obvious?
>can reach these alleged philosophical conclusions independently on my own
But you see, this is exactly why meatbots are prgrammed this way; it's so that you dumb animals never learn to reflect on where "your" opinions actually came from, and how you acquired them.
I know very well where my opinions come from. They come from facts, logic and morality. Exactly the things you with your feminine personality will never understand.
>I know very well where my opinions come from.
We've already established fully that you don't, and your utter lack of self-reflection cements it.
You don't have a single argument in favor of this ridiculous claim.
>ridiculous claim
You mean like the claim that you just independently came up with all your standard modern normie opinions on your own, and that being absolutely innundated in them from the first day of your life had nothing to do with it? I appreciate how fricking dumb you are because you're making my point for me and demonstrating perfectly what this anti-philosophy agenda is about.
I do not hold any standard normie opinions. On the contrary, my opinions seem to be sufficiently nonstandard to trigger NPCs like you.
>I do not hold any standard normie opinions
You do. You're just too dumb to even contemplate the vast array of beliefs you take for granted and accept without question as if they were fact. Your handlers just magnify that 1% of things you and other normalcattle disagree about making you think you're all special snowflakes even though you share 99% of your beliefs with the rest of the population. It's just like when I told you that you never reflect on the origin of your way of thinking and system of values, and you sharted out some incongruent reply about how you know the history of math and science. Those blinders are pretty solidly on, dumb animal, and all the anti-philosophy drivel that pseuds regurgitate nowadays is about keeping them on; "your" opinions about philosophy are just another example of you regurgitating someone else's agenda as if it were your own.
Why are you projecting so hard? Everything you said applies to you, not to me.
The very fact that you don't see the truth in what I say already proves me right. Now gb2r.
Still no argument. I won. Get over it.
What argument do I need besides your demonstrable lack of self-awareness and a whole thread of drones who sound identical to you? lol
>a whole thread full of educated people tells me I'm moronic
>clearly that means they're all wrong
Your level of delusion is impressive.
Must be another one of your completely original, independently thought of regurgitated dumbfrick opinion. :^)
What are you even seething about?
>NPC reaches end of dialogue tree
>reverts to fully generic spam
LOL. Yeah, tell me more about how everything you think is an original product of rational thought.
Go talk to some chatbot if you want to waste your time.
Pretty much what I've been doing. Shame on me.
>What merit do these philosophers have then, if all they did was stating the obvious?
Your lack of understanding in even basic philosophy is very telling lol. Bro the philosophical questions have always been fairly obvious.... but the answers not so much.... some very intelligent people would even say fricken impossible. Key Philosophical questions, some thousands of years old are still unanswered. The egotistical scientists just pretend they dont exist. Better to tinker away with axioms that will describe insignificant details of the universe. Reductionism at its finest lol.
I know far more about philosophy than you ever will. Nobody denies that unanswered philosophical questions exist. But many of them are nonsensical upon further investigation. And those that aren't nonsensical still haven't been answered by philosophers, which shows how useless philosophers are. What kind of "thinkers" spend several millennia thinking hard about a question without making any progress at all? Meanwhile science and math have solved thousands of questions without the last few decades.
*within
>What kind of "thinkers" spend several millennia thinking hard about a question without making any progress at all?
Its almost as if these questions are very difficult or something? So difficult that bright minds ape out over them. Even disregard them as nonsense...Ahhh the ego of the science man. His world must remain organized, structured.... like a mathematical house of cards. Reaching greater heights until the foundation itself is questioned... Just a simple philosophical question can tip the house over.
>His world must remain organized, structured... like a mathematical house of cards
What you describe here is analytic philosophy. It is analytic philosophers who try to larp as mathematicians and who autistically fail to define everything rigorously. As a genuine mathematician I have no problem accepting that there are problems outside STEM which are not amenable to the same rigor.
>I don't consider you human
Why yes, my high IQ actually makes me superhuman
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
if developing abilities is going to enslave you, why would you do it? marxist rhetoric on appeals to low iq delusion prone morons who have israeli style messiah complexes.
>developing abilities is going to enslave you
What bizarre strawman is this?
Not him, but how would an organizing principle of society be enforced if not by society? The logical tissue of "X can do something therefore X will do something" implying "enslavement to the thing you can do" is pretty clear in this context.
>X can do something therefore X will do something
That's not what "from each according to his ability" means. How about "X can do Y, so we should let him do Y instead of forcing him to do Z which he can't do"?
>let him do Y
And what if none of the X want to do their Y? Does society just stop? What if X not wanting to do Y kills W?
>Does society just stop?
Yes.
Not a very useful organzing principle then is it lol
Show me a society that doesn't collapse when nobody is doing work anymore.
The question, then, is how well does an organizing principle prevent collapse. The one we're discussing lasted for about 3 posts
Your strawman lasted for less than 3 posts. Nobody said it prevents collapse.
It's hardly a strawman to assume an organizing principle is supposed to work at organizing—that's rather the point. The only way "from each X their Y" can organize anything is if society enforces a Y from every X.
Typical scientific chud, that cant into anything besides numbers.
>Ugh I can't understand the nuance of words because of my poor social and literally abilities. Only my numbas can be true because of made up theorems that another autist like me invented them.
Friendly reminder that Philosophy is bedrock of Science. The key questions they asked thousands of years ago have not been answered.
>>Ugh I can't understand the nuance of words because of my poor social and literally [sic!] abilities
This perfectly describes modern philosophers, in particular in epistemology, who autistically insist in finding rigorous definitions for naturally fuzzy words of everyday language.
>Philosophers are wordcels
Wittgenstein already said this in the 1940's and most philosophers today still don't understand it.
itt we see a butthurt humanities gay who's poisoning IQfy with this stupidity. perhaps IQfy is more your speed
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
what if I need a mansion Black person? you don't know me
Sort of. What happened is that "philosophy" used to be a generic word for math, science, language, anything useful to help us understand and interact with the world. As we acquired more and more knowledge, all of the useful ways to pursue knowledge broke off into specialties of their own. What we call "philosophy" now is simply all the useless shit that didn't work and help.
>some philosopher: hurrr derp
>other philosophers: yep, science can't answer the deep problem of hurr durr discovered by mr durr. that's why we need philosophy. science btfo!
There. That's the entire history of philosophy.
you forgot
>philosopher A: look we can predict how the stars move with math
>philosopher B: cool let's call it astronomy
>philosopher A: ok we're astronomers now
>philosophers: hurrr derp but does the star really exist outside of my mind
>astronomers: meds
>>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
except this is a terrible idea
Not if you don't mind killing the froms who don't comply and killing the tos who need too much.
some philosophy is interesting though, if nothing else, like thought experiments and stuff
like this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
This isn't philosophy, its just... horse shit. I am so sick of the NDE argument. There is no such thing as an NDE. We're talking about terrible injury that you recovered from. If your entire neuronal architecture suffered metabolic collapse, and somehow you started telling us what happened, then I would grant you your NDE, but that's impossible, which should tell you something.
I'm continually amazed at how allergic to philosophy this board seems to be.
It’s beyond the mental abilities of midwits who obsess over “science”.
Philosophy is more intellectual than “science”.
>just common sense
appeal to common sense is a fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
maybe try something more suitable for you,
eating crayons maybe