What is the point of philosophy in the modern era?

I've only ever read two philosophy books yet I can pretty safely say that I have got it all figured out. I don't even really see the point in reading philosophy books except finding better vocabulary for my ideas since they've all been written about extensively before I was born. I mean all ideas have been made already and those which are right can easily be proven true by science so what is the point? Why are we still arguing over what is real and not real?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because science is fake

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because modern scientists erroneously claim that science has rendered philosophy obsolete. But they don't know the obsolescence is a philosophical concept and that all scientists hold philosophical presuppositions which influence how they interpret and classify "facts".

      FPBP

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Part of it is an assumption that because know more about the world now, philosophy of the past must have been superseded. That's not true though, the facts that philosophy starts from are basic and haven't changed. But you'll still have dumb people saying that Newton's laws of motion BTFO all the pre-moderns, etc.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think we are coming back to Platonism, because mathematics simply does not work in nominalist terms at all and I am glad it is so, for it is a blow to postmodernists.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Science is basically our only chance at grasping at anything

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do morons feel de need to make statements about things they don't understand?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Regular reminder that the Dawkins and Bill Nye quotes in this image are not actually hostile to philosophy

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any philosophy before the modern age (1800) is garbage except Kant.
    Modern philosophers are smarter than the older ones

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern philosophers are easier to understand than the older ones
      ftfy

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern philosophers are smarter than the older ones
      kek

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are we still arguing over what is real and not real?
    Because you just isn't skeptical enough and you still believe in your eyes.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science can't deal with the most important questions in philosophy.
    It can't say anything about metaphysics or ethics. Or logic.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Zoom zoom zoom

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The earth is flat

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I've got it all figured out
    >posts Rousseau
    lmao

    OP is a flaming homosexual

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Plato
    >Thucydides
    >Tacitus
    >Plotinus
    >Machiavelli
    >Bacon
    >Spinoza
    >Leibniz
    >Newton
    >Rousseau
    >Vico
    >Kant
    >Nietzsche
    >Heidegger
    The collected works of these few writers together are worth more than everything else written by the human race collectively. Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare too, but they aren’t philosophers technically. Also the early moderns were the height of Western philosophical profundity; the German Idealists on the other hand were entirely derivative and obfuscatory and made redundant by Nietzsche.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you don't like thinking you can just say that

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

    >Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value—perhaps its chief value—through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For this reason greatness of soul is not fostered by those philosophies which assimilate the universe to Man. Knowledge is a form of union of Self and not-Self; like all union, it is impaired by dominion, and therefore by any attempt to force the universe into conformity with what we find in ourselves. There is a widespread philosophical tendency towards the view which tells us that Man is the measure of all things, that truth is man-made, that space and time and the world of universals are properties of the mind, and that, if there be anything not created by the mind, it is unknowable and of no account for us. This view, if our previous discussions were correct, is untrue; but in addition to being untrue, it has the effect of robbing philosophic contemplation of all that gives it value, since it fetters contemplation to Self. What it calls knowledge is not a union with the not-Self, but a set of prejudices, habits, and desires, making an impenetrable veil between us and the world beyond. The man who finds pleasure in such a theory of knowledge is like the man who never leaves the domestic circle for fear his word might not be law.

      >The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the objects contemplated, and thereby the subject contemplating. Everything, in contemplation, that is personal or private, everything that depends upon habit, self-interest, or desire, distorts the object, and hence impairs the union which the intellect seeks. By thus making a barrier between subject and object, such personal and private things become a prison to the intellect. The free intellect will see as God might see, without a here and now, without hopes and fears, without the trammels of customary beliefs and traditional prejudices, calmly, dispassionately, in the sole and exclusive desire of knowledge—knowledge as impersonal, as purely contemplative, as it is possible for man to attain. Hence also the free intellect will value more the abstract and universal knowledge into which the accidents of private history do not enter, than the knowledge brought by the senses, and dependent, as such knowledge must be, upon an exclusive and personal point of view and a body whose sense-organs distort as much as they reveal.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion. It will view its purposes and desires as parts of the whole, with the absence of insistence that results from seeing them as infinitesimal fragments in a world of which all the rest is unaffected by any one man’s deeds. The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable. Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom, and his liberation from the thraldom of narrow hopes and fears.

        >Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy: Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I have got it all figured out.
    you have to be 18 to post here

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer:
    >Kant's teaching produces a fundamental change in every mind that has grasped it. This change is so great that it may be regarded as an intellectual rebirth. It alone is capable of really removing the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect. ... In consequence of this, the mind undergoes a fundamental undeceiving, and thereafter looks at all things in another light. But only in this way does a man become susceptible to the more positive explanations that I have to give. ... My line of thought, different as its content is from the Kantian, is completely under its influence, and necessarily presupposes and starts from it.

    >He who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy. Such a man then stands to the man who knows the Kantian philosophy as a minor to a man of full age.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP here.
    I am going to make an attempt at succinctely expanding and explaining my point.

    There is no need for philosophy anymore because we now to a great extent understand that humans have evolved primarily to be hunter/gatherers. Then man embarked on agriculture and his life radically alterered. Complex language developed, writing systems developed, political structure developed, urban society developed. The human psyche as such has been thrown out of sorts, the mind now in command of a sedentary body is out of touch with its senses and survives on the best of its wits rather than instinct. Thus philosophy is not the understanding of thought but trying to rationalise the misunderstading of thought. The body has been made redundant of most of its function and inclinations and it is the mind left to try to understand its anxiety.

    We are just animals after all. Only our ego leads us to believe otherwise, only delusions of the mind lead us to believe we are really complex creatures, which is the source of so much of philosophy. Which is why philosophy is mostly nonsense.

    Once this is understood then only real hard science can truly address the matters of the human condition and how it can best form cohesive societies and live fulfilled lives.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're running full force with many unquestioned assumptions about the human condition and value judgements that you never came to empirically. All you did with your evolutionary psychology/agrarian society explanation is tell a story, not provide a classical argument.

      Don't confuse moronic, contemporary philosophy with the usefulness of philosophy as a whole, which allows us to make a meta observation of our thoughts and actions.
      >Once this is understood then only real hard science can truly address the matters of the human condition and how it can best form cohesive societies and live fulfilled lives.
      What "hard" science? With your talk of the human condition and cohesive societies you're entering the realm of psychology and sociology, which are certainly not hard sciences. Define cohesive, define fulfilled, and how are you going to bell the cat?
      Lastly I would look up "scientism", which you might have fallen sway to. It's tantamount to religious belief in the scientific process.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > All you did with your evolutionary psychology/agrarian society explanation is tell a story, not provide a classical argument.
        I am hardly going to write out a fall argument am I? Especially since it all seems pretty obvious to me.

        >What "hard" science?
        What I mean by hard science is the process of gathering research, carrying out experiments and gathering evidence to support and conclude an argument. There can never be a conclusion to philosophy, it is merely an exercise in thought with no end in sight

        >you're entering the realm of psychology and sociology
        Psychology has nothing to do with the human condition though. You do not consult a chimp psychologist to understand the needs and functions of a chimp do you? Sociology can at least study the behavioural patterns of humans across cultures and access which ones exist across cultures and which are culturally specific and thus conclude which behavioural patterns are a characteristic of human nature and which are learnt.

        I do not think science is a holierthanthou be all and end all. I respect philosophy but at some point there has to be a conclusion surely? Surely somebody has to just say okay enough is enough: this is bullshit, this is interesting but ultimately bullshit and the rest is as close to the truth as we are gonna get - but no. Only science really has any hope of reaching an ultimate understanding.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I am hardly going to write out a fall argument am I? Especially since it all seems pretty obvious to me.
          It's not obvious to everyone else, and if something appears pretty obvious to you it might be time to reevaluate what you believe. In your inner thoughts do you prescribe teleology to things like evolution ("humans evolved to be x"), or is that just a limit to communicating on a japanese anime image forum? Were all philosophers from all cultures sedentary anxious people, or am I projecting a contemporary image onto the past? Why devalue the human condition and epistemology to something "animal" and "delusional" but then believe our animal, deluded mind can produce "hard science"?
          >There can never be a conclusion to philosophy
          Science needs to be falsifiable, a good scientist shouldn't be content with an easy conclusion, especially if it's backed-up by a narrative of how the world ought to be in their head. What we assume about the world today from empiricism may be drastically different tomorrow.
          >I do not think science is a holierthanthou be all and end all.
          >Only science really has any hope of reaching an ultimate understanding.
          I'm hearing two conflicting statements here. I'd grant that science can help us better reach an empirical understanding of the world, and that's when it's being run well.
          >I've only ever read two philosophy books yet I can pretty safely say that I have got it all figured out.
          Please read more philosophy. Don't be content that you figured something out after a cursory glance at it. If you're an undergrad take a philosophy of science course. Most importantly read philosophy to be a better scientist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Indeed, it sounds like philosophy has nothing to teach the likes of you.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah you are correct, please never read any philosophy and avoid discussion about it, thanks!

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Crona: my blood is black

    Because the sciences and all the ethical/logical truths that you assume to be self-evident have been developed off the backs of philosophers. Also, read about the Problem of Induction if you are tempted to embrace scientism

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP but
      >muh problem of induction
      What about it? Are you going to stop trusting induction? No? Then shut up.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How does it feel to live life so utterly complacent?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Philosphy is (and always has been) about politics. Since society is changing, political thought is changing too and hence the need for new philosophy.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because we ask ourselves why and it won't stop.
    Why why ?

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The actual end of philosophy came with the modern understanding of physics. Prior to that in the Enlightenment it was being broadly intuited based on the growing body society but in the last century or so it’s become ironclad reality. There was a brief period of time in which there seemed to be some possible ambiguity caused by uncertainty in sub-atomic physics. That is: our universe is completely deterministic. Things are the way they are and do the things they do because it was destined to be so since the Big Bang. Understanding it won’t change it. Having being told this you will go on to do whatever it is you were going to do anyway. The atoms and electrons will collide and split off in predictable paths and continue doing so until the end of time. Most of you are too low-IQ to visualize how that works — that from the universe’s perspective everything is simply energy existing down a time axis. Low-IQs and midwits can’t imagine any other state other than the way their brains perceive it. But understanding it doesn’t matter because it can’t be changed. Furthermore, understand that only leads to mental suffering because it means the human condition is hopeless, so therefore high-IQs chose not to discuss it, hence the death of meaningful philosophy.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I can pretty safely say that I have got it all figured out
    Nobody has ever "had it all figured out," you just find a way to live despite that

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The people who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them-from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc.

    Why do you think there are so many Americans with political brainrot that claim that their old butthole who only cares about himself is better than the other old butthole who only cares about himself?

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