What's the point of philosophy? What has it accomplished independent of scientific advances? Philosophers of math and science dickied around about what we can and can't know while actual scientists and mathematicians built the world. Metaphysics has pretty much been tethered to the insights of science since the scientific revolution. The same can be said for ethical systems like deontology and utilitarianism. When philosophers tried to latch back onto all the fields that left is behind, it failed (logical empiricism). Beyond vague benefits like "helping form the mind" or "enriching the soul" (so does any other art or literature) it doesn't seem to have a place
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Whats the point of this thread you stupid fricking Black person
Not an argument
This is the philosophy board (because IQfy is compromised) so I'm asking it here
>Not an argument
No one said otherwise
You're a STEMtard. Stay in your lane.
All you're doing is confirming your reputation of being armchair obscurants with your heads in the clouds if you refuse to engage
Obscurantism is great. Frick being clear.
Think of it like this. Philosophy is the depth, science is the breadth. Science is playing in the puddle and pretending the ocean doesn’t exist, because whatever doesn’t conform to your methods you cannot accept.
I could put it to you two ways. One, your science depends on philosophy and was a product of philosophy. Science was created with certain assumptions and a specific point of view. These assumptions are the philosophy. There’s no science without a philosophy of science, so that fact in itself answers your question. And two, the fact there are very few if any generalists shows the limitations of science. There are only more and more specialists, becoming increasingly disparate and unable to tie together all the “knowledge” because their methods cannot unify anything until a complete reevaluation happens.
Also, the reason you are even making this post is because you are in denial. You guys literally believe there is no knowledge outside of scientific knowledge. It’s a complete myopia. It’s funny because the people who gave you science weren’t as myopic. You guys are essentially willfully ignorant because it’s very easy and simple, you can cut out all grey areas or even go as far as to deny their existence.
If you actually cared though (I don’t think you do because it threatens your ideas), you would read the mountains of literature that explain the exact question you asked us. I’m not even telling you to accept it as true, but if you actually wanted to know you would just read it.
So you can say that philosophy helped "start" empirical investigation thousands of years ago, but what since then? Have there been examples of points where philosophers had to show scientists the light in order for them to better understand their work? It seems like the only answer is
>well if you're thinking you're doing philosophy, science is just a method!
But why do we need "philosophy" as a discipline to do that? Everyone broke off from philosophy over time, and the past century of scientific development and invention have done more for expanding our understanding of the world and humans than several hundred years of "professional philosophers" whose musings seem more and more dated with each new discovery. It just seems like philosophy can do nothing but react to and interpret everyone who's doing the real work. It should go back to being interdisciplinary.
>the fact there are very few if any generalists shows the limitations of science. There are only more and more specialists, becoming increasingly disparate and unable to tie together all the “knowledge” because their methods cannot unify anything until a complete reevaluation happens.
I would not call this a flaw of science at all, in fact it speaks to a strength of the discipline. It turns out there's a frickton of stuff to know about the universe and no one person could hope to know it all, or even everything about one broad topic like chemistry. Our brains can only memorize so much, even when it comes to rules and standards and processes and so on, so we need specialists.
I would say the same is true of philosophy too! There are so many different schools and eras of it, let alone individual philosophers with their own stacks of books to their name, entire pages worth of terms they invented to symbolize concepts that are not simple... I wouldn't trust someone that says they're simply "a philosopher" the same way I wouldn't trust someone that says they're simply "a scientist".
>IQfy is compromised
oh yeah that board exists
what's going on down there?
You're saying philosophy as if it's some discipline with discrete boundaries where one says this is where philosophy stops and something else, e.g., physics, begins, or as if there's some discernable product of philosophy, its fruits, the product of the activity of philosophy whose fruits have been shown to better issue from a scientific discipline.
I'm more inclined to say that historically, philosophy is the most rigorous method for answering questions that exists until more sophisticated disciplines spin off from philosophy, like physics, biology, psychology, etc.. Philosophical thinking is just want a brain does in a sense, it's a natural human activity. Lots of every day people start to philosophize accidentally, in a way its place is everywhere.
On the other hand, "a philosophy" is just a way of thinking about a particular thing. For example, my philosophy of sex is my set of assumptions and axioms from which I make decisions about how I go about selecting a partner, performing the act, discussing sex. It's a system of thoughts that tells me about how I will decide what it means when I do x activity or when I'm attracted to someone. How personal or public I decide sexuality to be for me. Instead of just ape braining my way through life I have a space where I consider why and how things come to have meaning. There is always a space for that.
In a way a philosophical mind is what we should all strive for, according to many philosophers (go figure). But that's because we just made a word for what minds are naturally inclined to do, those who are exceptional at it recommend it.
In light of this it's not that we need philosophers to work on problems that are not solvable by science/tech. (though I strongly believe we do) it's that we need people to preserve, as guardians, the history of questioning and answering and questioning again which still can inform us when deciding how to think about what we encounter today.
the reason i made this thread is partly because i find it difficult to really get "at" philosophy in a way somebody would if they had to explain it to a very stubborn stem-oriented skeptic, like how socrates is faced with somebody like thrasymachus or another plato dialogue character whose opinion is so forceful and interwoven with dogma that it's difficult to know where to start in effectively challenging that belief, and i have lots of beliefs that are somewhat contradictory when pushed to their most extreme which i myself struggle to mediate
>i find it difficult to really get "at" philosophy in a way somebody would if they had to explain it to a very stubborn stem-oriented skeptic
Have you considered you're unironically a Skeptic?
Took me until Hume to realize I'm a skeptic and philosophy is worthless to me.
>"Philosophy produces no results"
It produces models. The models are usually so abstract they have 0 predictive power or practical utility. Still, philosophers believe they're understanding reality itself so that's why they do it.
Kant pretty much killed metaphysics. Other areas of philosophy have been subsumed by other disciplines, like neuroscience, evolutionary psych, etc. There is a lot of interesting work in "Philosophy of ___" studies but that's it. That's the only philosophy that really matters anymore.
Ever read pic related?
What's the point of anything?
You phenomenologist, you.
Everyone pretends like philosophy hasn't made any progress sense empiricism.
They conveniently ignore Kant and the implications of transcendentalism because its comforting.
Aaand we’ve come full circle
That’s a good philosophical question you’re asking
Except it's not a philosophical question, because it actually has an answer.
>What has it accomplished independent of scientific advances?
It invented the sciences mate
There's no point in metaphysics anymore. It's been replaced by neuroscience and genomics.
Science is going to replace humans too so there will be no need for us, either.
>there's no point in building a foundation, it's been replaced by the roof
Philosophy as a foundation implies that it has any coherence as a discipline in the way a scientific field does
I think there's some misunderstanding that scientists are brainless drones who apply the golden hammer of the scientific method to everything.
The act of doing philosophy (whatever that means) has definitely been beneficial over the past millennia. My question is why we need the "philosophers" to do it now.
>My question is why we need the "philosophers" to do it now.
They're simply different disciplines. Natural scientists are concerned with fundamentally different aspects of reality than philosophers. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that scientists should be the ones doing philosophy, but if so, that's like suggesting that biology should be done by surgeons because surgeons operate on living matter.
Neuroscience and genomics are built on top of a giant edifice of historically accrued metaphysical and epistemological premises and assumptions. Those may be accurate or inaccurate, but what's concerning is that a lot of people don't even seem to realize that they exist, and assume that natural science somehow provides first principles, which is hilarious.
>Neuroscience and genomics are built on top of a giant edifice of historically accrued metaphysical and epistemological premises and assumptions.
No they aren't.
To elaborate, philosophy may have paved the way for neuroscience and genomics, but these sciences in themselves do not rely on these past philosophies anymore. The discoveries of these sciences are new data from which new philosophies need to be created. All philosophies created prior to these discoveries are working off incomplete and inaccurate data (which means all metaphysics).
>All philosophies created prior to these discoveries are working off incomplete and inaccurate data (which means all metaphysics)
Why in the flying frick would empirical data have any bearing on inquiries which empiricism cannot study?
Why would you continue to make inquiries that modern sets of data obliterate at the onset?
What would those be?
All metaphysical inquiries, to start.
(You)
Reality starts in the body, not in a metaphysical world.
Once I hear a neuroscientist make even a single claim or statement that doesn't inherently presuppose a given metaphysics, I'll believe that. Their papers so far seem to be strangely enamored with outdated nonsense like the law of noncontradiction and syllogisms.
Neuroscientists aren't philosophers and it's cringe when they try to be. I'm saying that philosophies not built on modern sets of data given to us by neuroscience and genomics are outdated and no longer worth consideration. This includes all metaphysics.
How do "modern sets of data" from neuroscience make metaphysics "outdated?"
Any philosophy inquiring about a point of origin in regards to the structure of reality outside of the body is rendered moot by the data given to us by neuroscience and genomics.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you say.
Metaphysics is now part of mythology, as in it is merely how the past tried to explain things, but to us (who pay attention to modern data) it is no more than the creative storytelling of human beings at work.
That's nice, anon.
philosophers contemplating how the mind works without any real understanding of the brain
>descartes - mind is in the pineal gland bro
>kant - the brain has innate categories that allow for synthetic a priori judgments (also based on debunked newtonian conception of universe)
it's really no different from somebody like freud or jung
So, empirically derived data will provide the future framework for deciding how one empirically derives data?
Yes, and it's been like this for thousands of years.
Ok cool, thank you anon.
Metaphysics is the same, you know — a philosophy based on "empirically derived data." Sorry to be the one to reveal that to you.
the difference is that surgeons have to study biology, and advances in biological understanding are of great use to surgeons
i struggle to think of any instances where philosophers "passed down" some essential new insight that got science out of a rut, or influenced them enough for the methods of science to change.
Why do you insist on this supposed dichotomy of philosophy and science? Every learned person should know enough philosophy to recognise the ideas that they take for granted as something to question and fiddle with. Every learned person should know enough science to recognise the pure utility it provides and how it achieves it. I'd personally throw history in too. Know enough history to recognise that we newer learn, because we forget history.
>i struggle to think of any instances where philosophers "passed down" some essential new insight that got science out of a rut, or influenced them enough for the methods of science to change.
You've never seen people jerking Popper off?
no i haven't actually, logical empiricism was philosophy's attempt to cast armchair judgments on science, and it was a complete failure
I could buy at least a cheap coffee if got a cent for every time someone equated "it's not falsifiable" with "it's not scientific".
The foundation is built by neuroscience and genomics now, if that wasn't clear. Why continue to play with vague bullshit terms and ideas that were formed prior to any serious knowledge of how the brain and body work?
Either mental exercise or practical use or spiritual reinvigoration. The former is largely masturbatory
Unironically, philosophers are the only people who can found entirely new disciplines with totally new methodologies. If you spend time around STEMlords you will rapidly realize they're unable to invent their own concepts on the fly, so they constantly defer to authority or to somebody else's terms even for unexplained phenomena. A philosopher meanwhile will go into any domain of knowledge with his dick swinging and invent not just a single word but an entire web of interlinked concepts he made up entirely alone just to explain something.
This gift is usually wasted on philosophy, but you can apply it to literally anything and mog the grunts who normally work in said field. Philosophers are borderline savants when it comes to pattern detection and modeling, they dwarf average people so hard it's unreal. Imagine relying on statistics and prediction markets when you can just model out all of reality and deduce all your answers from there
>Philosophers are borderline savants when it comes to pattern detection
So if you’re autistic you can be a good philosopher? Thanks I needed that.
Does this actually happen? You're confirming the stereotype of philosophers thinking they know everything, arrogantly barging in on fields they know nothing about and trying to reinvent the wheel
>You're confirming the stereotype of philosophers thinking they know everything, arrogantly barging in on fields they know nothing about and trying to reinvent the wheel
Anon, that's exactly how it works. You know modern sociology is a child of Comte, right? Or psychology is the child of Freud who was basically a philosopher?
Drop in on enough STEMcel conversations, and you'll realize they have no ability to innovate their own methodology. They can only use terms that other people made for them, or models passed down from above. Whenever they use a term or model it's because "The data proves it" or "Research shows it's effective". Most STEMcels do not understand how often studies are just totally made up or important studies go unpublished because their conclusions would challenge some commonly-held idea.
Only philosophers have the full freedom of methodology. We are the only ones who can just invent whatever methodology we want, it's great.
>Drop in on enough STEMcel conversations, and you'll realize they have no ability to innovate their own methodology. They can only use terms that other people made for them, or models passed down from above.
yes passed down from other scientists
also this happens just as often in philosophy
"freedom of methodology" doesn't really give you much freedom at all if you're just as susceptible to the pitfalls of academic circlejerks, dogma, cults of personality/hero worship, historicism, schools being led astray for literal centuries.
what you're bragging about is being out of touch and having no methodology at all
>yes passed down from other scientists
...is what I'm saying
Scientists cannot really invent their own models, they just accidentally evolve over time for better or worse. If the model is failing to cover bases X and Y they're still SOL because the path they took to get there requires they use this particular model, or else nothing is comprehensible. This is why independent models are so important.
>also this happens just as often in philosophy
The majority of people who attempt any discipline are midwits. We're talking about the elites here.
>But what about the greatest of the great scientists, like Einstein?? Didn't he invent his own model for relativity???
And guess what? Einstein loved philosophy. Like so many other top physicists.
so can scientists not invent their own models or can only the most elite scientists invent their own models? however much einstein loved philosophy, he was a scientist and mathematician first. a philosopher could have never formulated relativity because they're reactionary
>so can scientists not invent their own models or can only the most elite scientists invent their own models?
Latter. Your average STEM grunt is incapable of that because he will never dare approach the boundaries of his discipline. Everyone knows you can only widen the scope of a discipline by daring to approach its boundaries, and if you cannot do this you will be hopelessly locked into one track, at the mercy of the one methodology you have which is deemed appropriate
"Scientist". "Philosopher". These words are arbitrary as frick. Einstein could think like a philosopher, that's all that matters. Most people can't.
Philosophy is a discipline that seeks to understand fundamental aspects of existence, reality, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. While it might not provide concrete answers to all questions, it offers valuable insights, critical thinking skills, and perspectives that can be applied to various aspects of life. Here are some reasons why studying philosophy can be beneficial:
1. Critical Thinking: Philosophy encourages critical examination of assumptions, arguments, and beliefs. It teaches you to analyze and evaluate concepts rigorously, helping you develop strong reasoning skills that can be applied in any field.
2. Clarity of Thought: By engaging with complex ideas and grappling with abstract concepts, philosophy helps sharpen your ability to express yourself clearly and concisely, both in speaking and writing.
3. Ethical Decision Making: Philosophy explores questions of morality, ethics, and justice, providing frameworks for evaluating ethical dilemmas and making principled decisions in personal and professional life.
4. Understanding Different Perspectives: Philosophy exposes you to diverse ways of thinking and different cultural perspectives. It fosters empathy and understanding by encouraging you to consider alternative viewpoints and appreciate the complexity of human thought.
5. Self-Reflection and Personal Growth: Studying philosophy often involves reflection on fundamental questions about existence, meaning, and purpose. This introspection can lead to greater self-awareness, personal growth, and a deeper understanding of oneself and others.
6. Intellectual Stimulation: Philosophy tackles some of the most profound and enduring questions humanity has grappled with throughout history. Engaging with these questions can be intellectually stimulating and personally rewarding.
7. Contributions to Other Disciplines: Philosophy has contributed significantly to various fields, including science, mathematics, politics, literature, and psychology. Many philosophical concepts have influenced and enriched other disciplines.
8. Cultural and Historical Understanding: Philosophy provides insight into the intellectual history of humanity, spanning different cultures and time periods. Studying philosophy allows you to appreciate the rich tapestry of human thought and civilization.
Throughout history, philosophy has accomplished much, shaping civilizations, inspiring revolutions, and laying the groundwork for scientific inquiry and technological innovation. Philosophical ideas have driven progress in fields such as ethics, politics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology, influencing both theoretical understanding and practical applications in the world. From the ethical teachings of Confucius to the political philosophy of John Locke, from the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre to the analytical rigor of Bertrand Russell, philosophy continues to enrich human understanding and inspire intellectual inquiry.
Thank you ChatGPT
What's the point of dreams? What do they accomplish? Dreaming of life results in nothing and is quickly forgotten, while people who are awake actually build the world.
Dreams have pretty much been tethered to the waking world since before humanity could name itself.
something something philosophy was the foundation upon which science was built, you moron.
Philosophy is a cool topic to have fun.
There are two main reasons why you should study philosophy:
1. The questions it deals with matter and are inherently fascinating. It matters how we know about things, whether there is free will, whether God exists, whether anything is morally good or bad, what the best kind of society is, etc.
2. Studying philosophy will make you a better thinker. Ordinary people tend to have strong opinions on the above things. However, their opinions are almost always confused and irrational. They don't know why they believe something, and they often don't even know what they believe. When they open their mouths on one of these topics, they often just spout meaningless nonsense and cannot articulate arguments for the things they believe. There's a very good chance that you are in fact like this, but you'll have no idea because you're incapable of telling the difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy. Studying philosophy is the only way to rectify this and to protect yourself from bad philosophy.
On what philosophy has accomplished, see pic related. The sciences literally owe their existence to philosophy.
What contribution has maths and science made to ethics exactly?
No one cares
Doing philosophy is all about being as biased as you can be. You take some narrow set of stances because they align with your biases and then you magnify that until it's not even recognizable to the average person. You have to make sure it definitely won't help them in any practical way.
It's calmed me and driven me.
>What's the point of philosophy?
living well
The questions that philosophers have asked remain unanswered.
What we today call science grew out of/is "philosophy of nature."
"Science," just used to refer to any systematic study of an area or inquiry. There are different sciences because of Aristotle's vision of interlocking areas of inquiry, each with their own first principles.
"Science" as distinct from philosophy is a relatively modern invention, and the breech was only fully secured in the 20th century with the "anti-metaphysical" movement. This movement, and the positivism that went with it, crashed and burned hard, but the damage was done.
Scientists deal with philosophical questions all the time. In biology and physics journals you will see questions like "is entropy subjective (Jaynes)?" "What is life? Are viruses alive?" "What is information? Is it material?" "Are species real or just names we create?" "Do natural kinds exist?" "What is complexity?"
These all intersect with philosophy and mathematics. For example, the books in pic related are packed with philosophical questions.
The attempt to divorce philosophy from something distinct called "science" with a supposedly higher authority didn't get rid of philosophy, it just dogmatically enshrined one very specific sort of metaphysics for about half a century. With the Boomers retiring, those old walls seem to be rapidly breaking down. It isn't that strange to see physicists co publish with philosophers these days.
the most correct answer itt
Springer Frontiers publishes a lot of work that overlaps philosophy, the sciences, and mathematics.
Theoretical work, particularly paradigm defining work generally has a good deal of philosophical analysis and conceptual development in play.
Wittgenstein did not think philosophy could contribute to our knowledge of the world, after the manner of the empirical sciences.
He held that philosophy was a contribution to human understanding - in particular, to the understanding of the structure of our conceptual scheme.
The task of philosophy is to resolve or dissolve philosophical problems.
Philosophical problems are conceptual confusions.
They arise through difficulties in finding our way around our own conceptual scheme.
They can be dissolved only by scrutiny of the use of words, by a meticulous survey of the network of related concepts, and a demonstration that the bounds of sense have been transgressed.
Philosophy is not continuous with science.
It is not even in the same business as science.
And its results are not additions to the sum of our knowledge of the world.
There is no room for theories in philosophy on the model of scientific theories that can be confirmed or infirmed in experience. There is no room for hypotheses, for it cannot be a hypothesis that a certain form of words makes sense. The task of philosophy is to achieve conceptual clarity - a perspicuous overview of a segment of our conceptual scheme, and thereby the resolution or dissolution of philosophical problems. The rewards of philosophy are conceptual clarity, and the ability to find our way around our conceptual scheme so that we can cope with conceptual confusions when they arise. Past philosophers searched for the map of Treasure Island in order to find the hidden treasures of metaphysical insights into the essence of the world. It took Wittgenstein to realize that the treasure is the map.
(P. M. S. Hacker)
the least correct answer itt
How is Wittgenstein wrong?
>
Scientists deal with philosophical questions all the time. In biology and physics journals you will see questions like "is entropy subjective (Jaynes)?" "What is life? Are viruses alive?" "What is information? Is it material?" "Are species real or just names we create?" "Do natural kinds exist?" "What is complexity?"
Of course, and these are philosophical problems, not empirical problems. There is no contradiction. Physicists do not solely deal with empirical problems, they also think about the conceptual framework of physics itself: how to use language, how to define terms, how to construct theories. Historically that was generally the case. Physics emerged out of natural philosophy.
>Wittgenstein did not think philosophy could contribute to our knowledge of the world, after the manner of the empirical sciences.
Yes, where is the contradiction? When physicists think about "What is information?" they do not contribute to our knowledge of the world, they contribute to the understanding of the conceptual framework of physics.
Basically:
"Does water boil at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius?" is an empirical statement.
"How do we define temperature?" is a philosophical statement.
That's how I understand it. But honestly, while it's a useful mental model, it seems reductive and I don't think it applies to all of philosophy.
>scientists deal with philisophical questions all the time
>philosophy is not useful
durr where contradict durr
>philosophy is not useful
Where did I claim that? You can't read, lol.
>Wittgenstein did not think philosophy could contribute to our knowledge of the world
It's getting ridiculous, man.
>The rewards of philosophy are conceptual clarity, and the ability to find our way around our conceptual scheme so that we can cope with conceptual confusions when they arise.
>He held that philosophy was a contribution to human understanding
>The task of philosophy is to resolve or dissolve philosophical problems.
>did not think philosophy could contribute to our knowledge of the world
>held that philosophy was a contribution to human understanding
So you think that conceptual clarity is not useful? You wrote that physicists deal with conceptual questions. By that logic, physics wouldn't be useful.
holy shit
I accept your concession.
no concession was given, i am simply stunned by your inability to follow a conversation.
i was asked where the contradiction was.
i provided you the contradiction.
That's funny because your posts are devoid of substance.
>the least correct answer itt
>durr where contradict durr
>philosophy is not useful
You haven't made a single point about anything while apparently misreading the argument in question. Get back to me when you have learned how to think.
i will concede that if you ignore the one point i made, i made zero points.
again, anon said
>Wittgenstein did not think philosophy could contribute to our knowledge of the world
and then, literally in the next paragraph said
>He held that philosophy was a contribution to human understanding
my response to this, was as you said, not substantive. which is why when the anon asked
>How is Wittgenstein wrong?
i responded with a quotation of another anon who soundly refutes the first anons initial proposition (from authority, like the homosexual he is) that
>philosophy could not contribute to our knowledge of the world
to which two anons, one of which presumably being you, completely failed to follow what was happening because youre both autistic morons.
>philosophy is not useful
Is this really what you got from the quote?
I'm really tired of this stupid rhetoric of "science is useful and good and other stuff isn't".
First of all scientists themselves aren't very useful at all. You can read the average scientific paper and realize all it really amounts to is "maybe this thing is related to this other thing we gotta do about a million more tests to actually give you any real answer.
But then even before any of that you have the fact that so much of science is totally fake, not reproducible, biased, and just plain incompetent. And they're never gonna do those million more tests, not in your lifetime, because it costs way too much money and nobody cares enough to fund it.
The "useful" people are capitalist buttholes who say "I don't care this little bit of research is good enough for me to make a product and exploit as many people as possible for profit and who cares about the consequences" or military buttholes who say "I don't care I just wanna kill people better oops I made something that's also good for not killing on accident". The people willing to do the dirty work and put science into real practice are never actually trying to do it for anyone else's benefit but their own. All of the things you think you should be thanking science for you should actually be thanking some businessman for. They're the last people you should trust but this is where the world of science and materialism ends up and you can't avoid that.
Scientist really have no business getting on their high horse acting like they contribute the most to society. They run a circus. At best science is just flooding the world with pointless information confusing and disorienting the populace and at worst it's a truly evil force for those in power to control you.
Good question.
The reason why Socrates was an important thinker was becuase he searched for how to live well. The presocratics were mostly concerned with the nature of reality. Socrates then inspired the cynics, the stoics, the epicureans, the skeptics and so on. Their philosophy was therotical but also gave guidance on how to live your life. Then christianity came. Becuase christianity had to rival the ancient greek philosophies, they introuduced a christian way of life. Then christianity became the dominant way of living life. Have a question about a question about how to live your life? Consult your priest/the bible. This reduced philosophy to dealing with epistemology/metaphysics/ethics in the abstract. The answer of how to live life was answered by the bible. Now that the west is becoming more secular, it's starting to focus on the question of how to live life again.
TLDR: The most important part of philosophy is to give a guide on how to live life. Christianity got a monoply on that and forced philosophy to do less important stuff.
it builds the mind frame for other (physical and material sciences) to prosper. and also ethics is necessary for obvious reasons. if you question the "ways of thinking" of a culture that questioning, albeit abstract, can give birth to very practical applications. superstition delayed science. but when it became possible to develop philosophically other approaches to 'the way see the world' and question superstition, it became possible for science to develop. development of thinking and abstract ideias comes in parallel with development of sciences. another way of putting it is, you make music with a structured set of notes and rythms, and thats how "music is made". but then comes philosophically the question of "what is music", accompanied by societal developments (industry etc). and people start to create in other ways, with new sounds that are not "notes", etc.
To learn how to live
Philosophy will become useless when scientists stop being drones that endlessly repeat diet coke versions of philosophical ideas they received third hand whenever pushed on a question of ethics or really anything outside whatever their very narrow specialisation may be
>philosophy will become useless when scientists start acting like philosophers
>scientists know... le nothing
>bro philosophers understand understanding itself therefore they understand... le everything!
another arrogant "philosopher"
Conduct an experiment with me
Google around for astronomers explaining what their discoveries mean to them and their views on ethics
If you can find a single original thought that is not a badly digested version of this or that philosophical view, your hypothesis that scientists don't need philosophy wins
>If you can find a single original thought
that's asking too much, even from a majority of philosophers
also
>that is not a badly digested version of this or that philosophical view
yeah this is just going to be some goalpost moving "no true scotsman" deal so I'm not going to bother replying
It's not a very good experiment yes but it is an interesting experience
Around the third time you start hearing someone drone on about the diversity of the stars and the diversity of us or some vastness of the universe bullshit, you'll start seeing the problem hopefully
I'm inclined to defend philosophy and agree that the typical astronomer likely has a relatively weak handle on the scope of its issues, but I have vastly more respect for a scientist who is deeply acquainted with the actual understanding of the great heavens and our place in them that we now have in practice compared with the kind of person who simply goes into philosophy, to do philosophy because they find they'd rather do that than do anything that engages with the world, and then go on to shit up academia with meme papers that add nothing but more words for others to toil through in order to claim they've kept up with the latest in X field.
Anyone seriously interested in advancing philosophical understanding ought to have some desire to test themselves against 'the real', as opposed to only doing modern "philosopher's philosophy". There are few powerful minds who may be able to get away with treating philosophy as something pure that they can tackle and do meaningful things with in their own right, like a Heidegger, but for the most part a philosopher should be driven to take up an impure and practical discipline in which to right themselves and through which they can have practical impact on the world if it turns out they don't have the genius insight to make real breakthroughs in thought alone.
There is no point.
>What's the point of philosophy?
To uncover Truth.
Philosophy is the discipline of learning to ask the right questions. Not everything is about answers, sometimes the answer to a question becomes obvious when you reframe it. Sure, men like Einstein or Planck expand the realm of answers that humans have but what’s is often overlooked is that they expand the realm of potential questions tenfold with every answer they give. Philosophy is the art of making sense of chaos. In a way every philosophy is true and false because it’s the conditions of the society that determine what questions are important and more importantly how those questions are framed. If Aristotle’s metaphysics are outdated to us that merely means we’ve grown beyond them. The only eternal truth of philosophy is change.
>stemcels and philosocucks catfighting for relevancy
>literature chads fricking their girls and changing the world
literature chads, why we are so much better than philosopy and stem cucks?
There’s no beauty in stem and philosophy is irrelevent. Literature is both beautiful and relevant to contemporary society.
Philosophy is a noble human science; most socalled "philosophers" are actually sophists, and/or odiosophers, or solely logicians.
Science, and art, are mutually complementary, with neither being subordinate to the other.
Past a certain point, art without science redounds in pseudoart, or antiart, as science without art redounds in pseudoscience, or antiscience: desertification of consciousness.
The ultimate distinction of philosophy natively consists in, and novatively derives from/expounds upon, architextually naming & tokenizing the terms of the procession of love.
The philosopher should be the bad conscience of his time. Bullshit WILL arise, and philosophy trains you to call it out. But the dark side teaches you to produce your own bullshit.
>What's the point of [...]
Intrinsically philosophical question. Sapere aude, friend.
It can prove things. Like the divine, since NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.