Thoughts on Philosophy: Engineered and his criticism of philosophy?
(aka. anti citizen X)
https://philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/p/helloworld.html
Thoughts on Philosophy: Engineered and his criticism of philosophy? (aka. anti citizen X)
Thoughts on Philosophy: Engineered and his criticism of philosophy?
(aka. anti citizen X)
https://philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/p/helloworld.html
Embarrassing autistic moron regurgitating logical positivist and American pragmatist positions without any cognizance of the derivative character of his positions. Talks like he's never seen a vegana before.
Pragmatism is based, Delyouwheeze is not
I'm not adjudicating over Pragmatism, but it's moronic of this guy to think he's reinventing the wheel as if analytic and Pragmatic philosophy haven't been more or less the norm in academia for the last century or so. Like, does he think no one else has come up with the same basic b***h criticisms he has and demanded that philosophy submit to the standards of math and science? This isn't even touching the fact that he's unaware that the standards he would have philosophy submit to were developed by philosophers.
>gynocentrism
well maybe america is #1 for a reason
thanks for saving my time. top kek.
I'm reading through one of the articles and it's actually embarrassing.
Even IQfy isn't as bad at philosophy as this homosexual most of the time.
>"Prof, you made me read some stoicism. Should I adopt this philosophy to be happy?"
>"No you little shit that wasn't the point"
>"Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh but what should I dooooo"
Laughable
Same energy as picrel
>Same energy as picrel
Good eye.
Kek incredible
He's so autistic that he didn't have the selfawareness to notice drawing his cargo pants (kek) like that makes it look like he has an ass where his dick should be.
What a sad little workcuck bugman. It really is telling that his biggest complaint with philosophy is that there isn’t an authority figure giving him commands to fulfill. This is exactly the guy Nietzsche was referencing with the Last Man.
>If, however, you want hard, definitive answers, then sooner or later you’re going to have to start imposing some basic standards. In that sense, I’m afraid to say that philosophy is most definitely dead, because it was technically never alive in the first place. Science is the ultimate authority in that realm, because science actually has standards for what correct answers are supposed to look like. Science therefore doesn’t need philosophy in any direct sense, because science is a philosophy. So until mainstream academic philosophers learn to impose a philosophy of their own, they shall forever remain on the sidelines as other institutions carry on the real work of research and discovery.
Fricking KEK
Sound like the average onions consuming scientism zealot.
>watches a Sam Harris debate once
>watches a Sam Harris debate once
Determinists deserve to be beaten to death
>science actually has standards for what correct answers are supposed to look like.
lol
I wonder where those standards could've come from...Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, Leibniz, that Newton guy who titled that one irrelevant work "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"...nope, must've just come from causa sui scientists.
They're just, like... in the air, man. Just out there. Like our currently accepted moral principles, at least that's what one of the greatest scientists of all time Sir Richard Dawkins says. I HECKIN LUV IT!
>science actually has standards for what correct answers are supposed to look like
They're as per those funding the research, kek.
I don't think this argument actually works in the age of "women can have penises" being "science". If we were still in the early 20th Century and discussing greats like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and Newman, sure. Because those were all men with a sense of intellectual humility and understood the position of the natural sciences relative to philosophy. The modern scientist doesn't actually have the breadth of knowledge necessary to contextualize what the frick they're doing so they're all technical specialists focused on achieving results in a very narrow field and then projecting what their university professors said on every other field of inquiry like its all the same. This is how you get midwit takes like "Ethics can be verified with empiricism"
Anyway the guy has been a known pseud for a long time and that will probably never change.
>https://philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/p/helloworld.html
Kek, what a gay.
He also has a youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/@AntiCitizenX/videos
>he's a fedora tipper
Of course.
Shitting on metaphysics is entirely justified, but IQfy will seethe about it.
It is pretty fricking dumb considering that we are in 2023. It would be like shitting on art and poetry.
I love it when right brain engineering types get into IQfy
No idea who you are talking about. Seems gay and materialist to me though.
I see the word philosophy next to engineer and I can confidently assume that this is some bugman basedbrain who answers a philosophical question like "how to tell two identical clones apart" with something like "check the CCTV footage"
I like how none of you losers did, or would ever be able to come up with actual arguments against any of these edgy redditors' points.
The best you IQfy losers can possibly come up with is namecalling and some cringey "DUH" remarks which are basically veiled admissions that there really is no inconsistent logic whatsoever about anything the fedoras say and you are just ticked off by their attitude and the supposed obviousness and banality of their arguments.
New Atheism turned not believing in God into an intelligence LARP. There's no point discussing religious modes of understanding with adults who want you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa.
Again, you poor souls, cannot really do anything but namecall. You losers keep up this pathetic act that you guys are so deep and spiritual because you have no better interest in life than to waste time trying to decipher the random garbo of some 500yo wasted high IQ schizo and every atheist is le ebil bugman ecksledee when in actuality it's 100% you mongrels who are completely incapable of conceiving the possibility of a person not feeling the need to have a religious belief, and being unable to cope with the obvious consequence this lack of need will have on your reasoning compared to someone who does have a strong religious belief. It's not them not being open to debate, it's always you morons. They are open as can be. You guys have yet to do anything but namecall.
"But he acts so smug about it!!! Me no likey!! :(" cry me a river midwit.
>has autistic meltdown when it's pointed out not believing in Santa isn't impressive
Not reading all of that, sperg.
No one who reads your blog will ever frick you, anticitizenx
OP here, it's very obvious that this is not anticitizenx who you are replying to. I'd bet most of the people on this board are agnostics who defend christian theology for... no logical reason. I don't even agree with most of the dude's arguments, but jesus man, come up with some of your own.
>I don't even agree with most of the dude's arguments, but jesus man, come up with some of your own.
There is literally 2000 years of the stuff, and it's worked out to microscopic logical precision.
yeah 2000 years of cope and nonsensical faux-arguments based on completely fallacious usage of language.
What have you actually read? First you say there are no arguments, now you're claiming the arguments don't make sense, based on some weird strawman portrayal. You're clearly in over your head.
Ok, follow me on this one moron: this guy, he opened a youtube channel, where he says stuff.
I, a random guy on the internet, agree on pretty much everything he says in his videos.
You, stupid moronic Black folk, are taking the piss of it all while acting deep and spiritual (which is INCREDIBLY annoying) while not being able to provide any argument and your critiques so far have been basically "his cartoon drawings look dumb" (I agree) and "he think not believing in santa=impressive xDDD lllloooolll".
I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you people are NOT capable of coming up with a sound argument against a single of the points he presents. Not even one, Black person.
If you post them here, I'll refute them. I'm not giving his blog views.
My, how will philosophy cope with such arguments as "nuh uh" and "that's nonsense"? This idiot's entire essay on metaphysics is just "I don't know what it is or what it adds to knowledge, so let me spend too much time arguing against it and b***hing about phrases like 'first philosophy' and 'being qua being' instead of ever discussing, I dunno, anything Aristotle says, which I have no intention of even glancing at." Imagine seething "you're not giving him a fair shake!" when his entire schtick is refusing to look at anything at all.
Why debate colors with the blind? Either one has the inner sensory organ for the transcendent or one is a sad seething bugman, like you. Your very categories betray you. The idea that there's a "need" for religious belief...
please go find some illiterate peasants who picture God as a bearded man on a cloud and show them how much smarter you are, to get the poison out for a while.
THE INNER SENSORY ORGAN FOR THE TRANSCENDENT.
You guys are unbelievable. Why are you so adamnt on being so cryptic and fake, instead of just keeping it simple and showing the whole world the utter undepth of your thought? Just admit you jerk off to the thought of some moronic day-of-rope kind of scenario where you are le ebin hero killing off le evil bugmen. You would really like immersing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Forces of light vs forces of darkness and all that 5yo shit. You losers NEVER grew up and no amount of bookworming will fix that.
Wow, you sure are eager on proving my point, I wish your gf was this enthusiastic when sucking my dick
>brings up lynching black people out of nowhere
erm... everything going alright, bud?
I want you to know and understand that everything about this post, from you assuming people are religious because they feel a need to be, to you doing literally nothing other than the very thing your criticizing, outs you as the middest of all wits. There's a reason no one here is seriously engaging with you and it is not because they can't understand how smart you or people like you are.
It's because you people never learn and it is never worth it.
I am engaging with you seriously so you'll actually examine yourself and your worldview and not spew out disgusting drivel like this again.
You're gonna get a lot more public approval for the sentiments you have, but anyone even remotely above average in intelligence will not want to talk with you about anything serious
when you are done pretending you know me personally you are free to point out any mistake in any anticitizenx video. I mean, they are utter and complete garbage STEMcel nonsense right? Just point out the most glaring and blatant of them all and be sure to actually COUNTERARGUE. Show me where the LOGIC doesn't HOLD UP. And to be clear: just repeating what someone said and adding "lol" afterwards really doesn't help me get any closer to realize just how high the IQ of the average il/lit/erate is, I'm dying to know just how deep your insights can go, so I need something just a bit more nuanced than "lol". Amaze me, Plato.
If you want to know why it's so rare for people to engage this stuff seriously here, go read the reasons I told you nobody was engaging with you. You personally identify with this schlock to the point you're ardently defending it.
It's tried old points from midwits who are desperate to feel smart and have attacked what they thought was an easy target, and you can't really even argue with them because they are literally too far up their own ass to understand the counter argument. All that's gonna happen is your gonna give basic refutations and their gonna talk themselves into their ignorant little circles and it'll just be a huge waste of time. You understand?
Because it is old, the latest stuff is something that Richard Rorty addressed in the 80s, so I am supposed to talk to every single dude on the internet explaining that whatever that they thought already exists and it was thought decades ago?
I'm not the one giving "hot takes" on philosophy or trying to "implode it" using philosophy, while saying that it is useless. It is laughable, honestly, I'm not taking this shit seriously, and this is coming from someone who has no formal background in philosophy. I studied physics and computer science in college.
you dont need an argument, all you need is a heavy rock or a big stick. his entire thesis is "mechanistic materialist scientism is correct because it has academic authority." so you just impose greater authority by physically beating him until he accepts metaphysics as valid.
I've met guys like this irl and it's pretty quick to get them to either acknowledge philosophy is important, or make them look stupid.
Usually I go for morality and the trolley problem, and then the issues that the deontological and consequential sides of the equation bring up. For metaphysical questions, epistemology can be brought up by describing black swans, and ontological issues by asking how something like Harry Potter, a character that doesn't exist, can effect our brains and emotions.
I don't care how you impress the ladies irl by making fun of people who are even more stupid than you are, either counterargue against the points being made by the funny cartoon youtuber or shut the frick up loser.
>m'lady
>[tips fedora]
>wants le engagement
Dude, just get into what is literally happening in Philosophy right now if you want to question it or whatever. He is addressing shit that were already addressed by Rorty in the 80s. I don't care about that shit, I have my own set of questions that I feel like thinking. I don't really give a shit about science outside practical matters and some "fun" stuff.
Like 50 years ago, this shit isn't even from this century.
I don't want le engagement I want to see the likes of you people not say anything of worth while wasting your time with absolutely moronic nonquestions such as "how can a fictional character make me feel things??? :oooo" that you only pose yourself due to incapability of proper language usage.
You are not making sense. I definitely recommend that you stop, take a deep breath, and exhale slowly, do this 3 times. Then rewrite this thing.
is that what your therapist asks you to do when you pay him to reassure you because the evil atheist bugman was smug on the internet and it traumatised you? btw how did harry potter killing the evil mage make you feel??? he doesn't exist after all!!! :oooo crazy metaphysical stuff!!! so much to think about philosobros.......
>writes like some fricking sperglord
Are you pretending to be him?
>i don't want le heckin engagement!!!
>what i want is to see people argue with an autist repeating academic summaries of logicism and positivism
>those essays about metaphysics where he just says "i dunno what it means and i don't care" are arguments and you aren't engaging with them the right way by pointing and laughing at the moron who doesn't understand the word qua
Anti Citizen X take your autism pills and frick off. "Philosophy is le bad because hecking science proves everything" is not an interesting take and it's not worth discussing in the least.
Original Poster, if you want people to provide any kind of feedback you need to quote the parts that you think should be analyzed or at least an article. The very fact that you didn't do that means you're not serious about it or perhaps want us to just start making fun of him. His very presentation, that of aesthetics and use of words shows that he's immature and is not invested in thinking but rather to appear quirky and harmless yet powerful enough to destroy something so vast. It's up to you, just do what I said and you will get a reply.
I don't know who this guy is or what he believes, but I'm hijacking this thread to present this somewhat broad thesis:
95% of the time you should be using a skeptical, pragmatic philosophy without metaphysics.
Maybe that philosophy isn't right all the time, but it's right enough that it's practical and quick enough for most real life situations
How is it skeptical if you're seemingly taking for granted practicality as a terminal value?
anon, you're triple moronic now because you cannot even understand how imageboards work. See, people are completing these points through the replies, that's why I linked them together....anon please tell me you are not this stupid.
The reason calling him unoriginal is a valid counterargument is because that is not the entire counterargument. The point these anons are trying to make is that his ideas, which he is obviously stupid for believing are brand new and novel, are older than formal western academia and have a plethora of work that refutes them from every angle.
And then you get dudes who make it extra funny by pointing out that this science/logic worshipping moron doesn't even understand that philosophy built the standards and metrics he claims makes science superior. It's a completely moronic argument that refutes itself and isn't even worth engaging, so instead we scoff at people like this and at people like you, you fricking idiot
b***h I have no idea what exactly made you think I don't know how an imageboard works but you need to focus on reality and stop making shit up.
"people are completing points through the replies?" First is a moron saying anticitizen is basically Nietzsche's basedjak, and I don't fricking care about that.
Then there's morons saying "lol" and "lmao" while whining like you are about the unoriginality of it all. What fricking points are being made here?
Other than the point that the only "argument" you guys can make is just making up the fact that apparently this guy believes he's some kind of philosphy genius (probably some small projection from your side?) and that he HECKIN hates philosophy.
No he doesn't? He hates word nonsense. That's the underlying message of all of his videos. Again, you are totally free to point out his hypocrisy and lack of coherence by showing me an example of his own nonsense. I don't think that's gonna happen though. 🙂
This is the part I'm talking about, you're too fricking stupid to understand these counter arguments. They literally quoted him exactly and pointed out why he was wrong.
I'm gonna make this kindergarten easy for you
Here is the exact point he makes -----> If, however, you want hard, definitive answers, then sooner or later you’re going to have to start imposing some basic standards. In that sense, I’m afraid to say that philosophy is most definitely dead, because it was technically never alive in the first place. Science is the ultimate authority in that realm, because science actually has standards for what correct answers are supposed to look like. Science therefore doesn’t need philosophy in any direct sense, because science is a philosophy. So until mainstream academic philosophers learn to impose a philosophy of their own, they shall forever remain on the sidelines as other institutions carry on the real work of research and discovery.
Here is the part where he is refuted ------> I wonder where those standards could've come from...Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, Leibniz, that Newton guy who titled that one irrelevant work "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"...nope, must've just come from causa sui scientists.
The point being made here is science does not exist without philosophy. The development of philosophy has lead to ways to categorize and understand the natural world in ways that have fundamentally built science into what it currently is. It is continuing to do so in cutting edge research and fields like quantum physics.
It's also moronic because it, like you, holds glorious science as a bastion of ultimate truth filled with hard facts and real answers. It just displays pure ignorance of the philosophy of science and all of it's related fields and history. Things you hold as your glorious objective true facts right now are gonna be easily disproven in 2k years and people of that time will think we were morons for ever believing it. Look at examples from the past like the 4 elements or the body's humors. You are a fricking idiot and you are being deservedly mocked, you "random internet atheist" you.
You should be focusing more time on perfecting your eye roll for the next time your parents make you go to church than talking about ideas online
>Things you hold as your glorious objective true facts right now are gonna be easily disproven in 2k years and people of that time will think we were morons for ever believing it
I agree. Oh but you know through what methods will they be able to easily disprove stuff that we take for granted nowadays?
....no, not by wasting their time reading Hegel or posing themselves faux-questions based on semantic malpractice 🙂
Which is ALL modern philosophy is concened about doing. Making you waste your time while making you think you must be some kind of genius. Keep dreaming il/lit/terate.
I haven't even read hegel, or any philosophy, but it's easy to see you're still quite moronic and unable to read. The same philosophy that built the foundations and methods for modern science are building the foundations and methods for things like quantum physics as we speak. You will forever be too moronic to understand this, apparently.
Literally, the philosophy of mathematics is a field of study you can check out and read about right now
lol I like this reply because it's basically the equivalent of "trust the scientist bro!"
trust the philosophers bro! they're doing so much work!!!
it's incredible. You guys are way past that point of moronation where you are made unaware of your own moronation itself.
Not at all, it's literally refuting the idea that science is the only thing that's going to advance us. Science and philosophy work in tandem, and philosophy builds the bedrock of science. Ask yourself a quick question like how we decided to use numbers to symbolize perfect quantities and whether or not it's entirely intellectual honest to use those perfect symbols of representation in relation to the real world, the same way we do with language.
See? hand in hand, that's happening at more advanced levels at the moment. These are the things it is obvious to me you can't infer for yourself and will whine and piss and cry about without some talking head spoonfeeding it to you so you can smash that mfing like button and comment about how genius he is
btw you should give philososhit a try, maybe you'll come back to this thread and realize just how fricking stupid these people you are siding with are.
Or maybe you will read about a random german Schizosteinhauer that particularly resonates with you and start repeating his dogma like a parrot while your understanding of real things keeps decreasing day after day.
Philosophers are inferior to narrative authors, that's why I don't read them. If you don't have the skill to weave your ideas into a narrative I simply do not care to read them.
Most philosophy I've looked at is just stuff that it seems like people can come to understand naturally, the only reason it is useful is that it adds names to complex concepts for easier communication of them, which is useful for building the foundation of things like math and science. Which is why I'm still on this side, and you are still moronic.
>I haven't even read hegel, or any philosophy
IQfy - Literature
Like I said later on, philosophers are second rate compared to narrative authors. If you can't spin your ideas into a narrative I don't have any interest in reading it. The few philosophers I have given a try seem to come up with the same things anyone who takes even a bit of time to seriously consider the nature of things and themselves would come to naturally. It's useful for communicating certain complex concepts by giving them solid names for shorthand, but worthless for personal study when you're uninterested in talking about that kind of thing with other people.
Not to mention something important is lost when a concept is spoonfed to you word by word instead of you being guided to it through a narrative, and an idea that can't be communicated through narrative is a bit too detached from reality to actually be worth anything besides making you better at jerking your ego.
It has it's uses and it has it's place, but when it comes to the communication of concepts for personal enrichment and understanding narrative will always reign supreme
>"...were developed by philosophers." And? How exactly does that relate to any argument made by him? I don't think he's unaware of it at all, I think this poster doesn't even realize he pointed out something true but completely worthless. Anticitizenx doesn't want no philosophy, he wants good philosophy, so of course he's gonna respect good philosophers. Do you guys at least realize that much from his content?
>same thing as before
The relevance is that this guy holds up standards to judge philosophy by, and those standards were themselves all developed by philosophers who called what they were doing philosophy. But if you hear it from him, science has always been something separate and distinct from philosophy, which is historically untrue, and if you call that quibbling, then I'm not sure what you or he identify as "intellectual rigor."
But we'll take another tact: this guy criticizes Aristotle for believing in a geocentric account of the cosmos in his short polemic on Aristotle's metaphysics. Okay. Let's judge that belief in light of his argument supposedly solving the problem of induction on his blog. His standards seem to be "is it pragmatic?" and "is it falsifiable?" So let's take Aristotle's claims about the cosmos.
Imagine you can instantly go back in time and meet Aristotle, to persuade him he's wrong. You say you can prove that the earth moves around the sun. BUT! You don't have any telescope. No telescope means you can't prove that parallax occurs among the "fixed stars", which we expect to observe if the earth moves around the sun. Additionally, you have to prove that the earth moves and that this movement has a recordable effect on the planet, so you have to prove coriolis effect as well: this requires consistently dropping things from a high place and hoping it's not windy out so that the results aren't judged defective. So you need adequate technology and perhaps fine architecture to pull off the experiments needed to demonstrate that his belief is false and that ours is true.
But by the standards of this guy, going by the induction essay, it shouldn't be a big deal anyway to Aristotle: after all, he openly admits in the treatises discussing the cosmos how uncertain his study is, so he's already open to something like falsification. But further, he could give the same response ACX does regarding the pragmatism of his beliefs: "You don't have the tools to show me that this other way is true, so why should I care? Even if it's false, as a model it helps better for navigating the sea than what you're suggesting, and why should I care even if it's true? We're not going up to the cosmos, so it's not relevant to me."
So by his own standards, it shouldn't be a big deal whether Aristotle is wrong or right about geocentrism.
Dude how are you still making these moronic posts? Just because people can explain their distaste in a condensed form that implies a full argument that anyone who is familiar with arguments against these kinds of logical positivism or empiricism would understand doesn’t mean that they can’t argue against him. He doesn’t even really have any arguments which require a special handling, he’s regurgitating old empiricist arguments that he doesn’t even really understand. His essay against metaphysics really only has three points: it’s an ill defined field, there is no philosophical consensus, the methodology of a-priori truths cannot tell us anything useful. As to the first point, yes, it is ill defined. Nearly every original philosopher has his own metaphysical framework which emphasizes different aspects. To say that there isn’t a common overlap though is absolute insanity and betrays a bad-faith interpretation of metaphysics. Hegel agreed with Kant on most of his framework. Aristotle agreed with Plato’s conception of forms but rendered it materialistically rather than ideally. Deleuze agreed with Spinoza’s framework. Moreover, unlike the hard sciences certain philosophical movements or motifs can be translated from one system to the next bearing a different name and place in the system but functioning all the same. For example, Hegel’s idea of subjectivity found itself resurfaced in the work of Freud. Baudrillard extended Marx’s commodity form to include language and other means of signifying. The lack of clear boundaries to the field is a mark of its vitality. How would new philosophy be born if we were confined to only think in Kantian terms? Or Platonic terms? How would engineers conceive of new ways to solve problems if they were confined to only thinking in Euclidean geometry? Or in radians? Why do engineers work with infinity? (Another ill defined concept) He’s purposefully nitpicking because what his arguments truly point to is that he’s disturbed at the lack of measurable progress in philosophy. He sees people arguing about age-old questions as a sign that it hasn’t progressed any. But the point isn’t that these arguments still exist. It’s that the actual arguments themselves have changed so it’s an entirely different conversation than it was 2000 years ago. The fact that he doesn’t realize this means that he either didn’t read new metaphysical works or he couldn’t understand them. For example, idealism vs materialism is an argument as old as time. To say that Aristotle’s difference between Plato is the same as Marx’s between Hegel is insanity though. Anyone who is familiar with them will know how much more complex the turn from Hegel to Marx was than Plato to Aristotle. And finally, for his third point just read the first 20 pages of the Critique of Pure Reason. I’m not going to explain it because it is so laughably false and I’ve already spent too much time on this post.
He didn't deserve that effort post but I appreciated it, anon.
Thanks for taking the time to actually sort it out from an educated philosophical standpoint, but I'm not wrong in saying recognizing the importance philosophy has had on science is something anyone remotely intelligent can infer without reading a single word of philosophy
>I'm not wrong in saying recognizing the importance philosophy has had on science is something anyone remotely intelligent can infer without reading a single word of philosophy
NTA but are you the same moron who has been crying that we have to watch this basedboy's videos in order to know he's full of shit? If so, the complete lack of selfawareness you're displaying by arguing that point means you're either a bot or might as well be one.
No I'm the guy who's been arguing against him
Sorry fella, I thought you were the guy complaining we needed to actually le prove that he engineering guy was full of shit. No harm intended. You are right about science stemming from philo btw. I was drunk and seeing double and pressed the wrong post to reply to
Thank you fren
https://philpapers.org/rec/FRIRRJ
This is something kinda interesting. You should blogpost about something like this.
>Someone give me an intro survey to help me LARP as if I'm informed instead of just strongly opinionated while I DEBOONK!
>I FRICKING LOVE SAM HARRIS
This guy is next level cringe. I mean, even a perfectly modest midwit would notice the elementary fallacies committed in that argument. Even the slightly 'tarded materialists can usually do better...
He's spent the better part of the last decade dunking on the most moronic Christian groups like YECs so it's given him a massively overestimated sense of intellectual ability since he can point out that Ken Hams a moron.
This is seriously the most moronic shit I've ever seen. What he sees as a good argument is philosophically equivalent to giving a blowjob under the table.
What both moral subjectivists and moral realists both understand, and midwits can't get through their fricking brain is that either you can make sound moral arguments or you can't. You can't split the difference between moral realism and nihilism
I have a feeling this guy won't be able to meaningfully engage with the likes of Frege and Russell.
>he doesn't know that Nazism found great support in and spread into universities via science/engineering departments
Maybe if he wasn't too busy superiority LARPing muh science he would have known that.
You know its american derrangement when they think the 'Right' needs to be relligious. That's what makes them objectively uninformed and wrong - if you come out of your ass and look at other countries you will see the same behaviour and ideas without the religious foundation, showing its origin is more natural. You could at best argue religious instinct and the so-called 'Right' is intertwined or stongly correlated to due to multiple causes.
This moron is hilarious acting like scientism has some kind of inherent leftist liberalism attached to it. It's easy to argue for eugenics from a scientific standpoint, and it's even common in elite STEM circles. homie needs to read brave new world
I don't think he's a leftist, just the stripe of libertarian or small L liberal that resembles Harris or Dawkins.
Is that supposed to be sarcastic against philosophers? Because it's perfectly correct, an example of the "inventive process" doesn't prove anything. If he actually knew math that would be quite obvious. Whew, the guy seems to be even more of a moron than I expected
Yeah, that argument seems to have the strange (for his kind of person) implication that truth doesn't matter (i.e., he's not distinguishing between historically contingent ways of doing math, and the products of math as true or not), which seems counterproductive for someone who wants to argue against theism on the grounds of its being untrue.
If he's an actual engineer the odds are he never took a real math course.
>Math is invented
???????
In "The Emperor's New Metaphysics" article, the requirements that he made about metaphysics, like the existence of some authorities to be trusted just by the virtue of them being authorities in the field or that there must be an "official" definition of "metaphysics" seems to be unnecessary at least.
Also “the branch of philosophy concerned with fundamental questions about the nature of reality” that he gives it could have "as a whole" added to it so other fields of study would only be concerned with a particular aspect of reality (or a part of reality) and its nature.
This is kind of weird. People here are so immersed in the temptation of high form of philosophy that they're actually not answering well. Even though this is something that needs to be counterargued quite rightly.
Superiority LARP.
>Anti citizen X
He changed his name because his reputation got too cringe to be taken seriously?
>It’s important to understand that Aristotle is not exactly well-respected in modern science or philosophy.
Aristotle is absolutely well respected in modern science as the inventor of classical logic and in philosophy for an infinity of other things
That's not even an argument anyway
>The legion of soi drunk academics don't like Aristotle these days
Well, so what? That's not an argument it's a literal appeal to popularity or authority.
Depends what do you understand by 'respected'. Is he famous and known for his philosophy and intellectual work? Yes. Is his work treated as something serious? Well, no, I don't think so. I don't think anyone but classical autists follow his thoughts on 'Arete/Virtue' or metaphysics. His 'Poetics' were interesting in the fragments I've read them, though.
Arisotle and general greek thought is foundational in history, but not exactly the base of what we consider worthwhile today.
And academia is so much the poorer for it. Maybe if they were schooled in dialectic and Aristotelean logic we wouldn't have so many moronic sociologists running around
I hadn't been genuinely astounded at the midwittery a human being is capable of in years
I thank you for introducing me to this, OP, because this has been the source of many hearty keks
He is so stupid that he unironically changed my mind. I watched his video on philosophy stagnation having never read a philosophy book myself. I thought philosophy was just an insulur group of guys circlejerking each other because they all believe the same thing. When he whined about lack of consistency I became interested. After he complained about ancient philosophers never becoming obsolete, I started reading The Republic lol.
He seems like a "shoot from the hip" sorta guy. If he didn't have things he sets out to prove from the beginning, he'd be a little better, but he's not much of an investigator of anything.
The word midwit is used a lot but this guy fits it to a tee. I'm sure he's not a stupid person but he's not anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is and clearly hasn't read, or understood, nearly enough philosophy for his opinions to be anything more than the projections of somebody who thinks he knows what their positions are because he reads secondary sources on atheist blogs.
The fact he wants a cribs notes on the philosophy of mathematics so he can skim them and deboooonk says it all. He's already made his mind up, any information he gets is parsed through his cemented position. He has no intention of reading anything that opposes his views to gain new perspective or synthesize knowledge.
I'm actually saving this thread to demonstrate what a midwit is
this is both funny and kind of frightening
>demonstrate what a midwit is
>midwit cope
Holy shit it's like IQfy but with normalgay seriousness turning it into pure cringe because their gay little identities are on the line. I've never been so thankful not to be a twitter user. It really is just a substitute for a real social life.