>best philosopher of science: Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein's doctrine of a thought that thinks itself without need of a human subject is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wittgenstein was a genius of unconsciousness, a hero of intellectual cowardice, the creator of a doctrine that reaches the heights of an almost unimaginable stupidity. In the Wittgensteinian world that awaits us, books will be read only by themselves, dismissing human readers. Knowledge will become a figure of speech to designate deposits of data that will be known to no one, and culture will become an electronic museum never visited. Of course, there will always be some individuals who will make efforts to remain conscious, and even the ruling elite will have some need for their services. But I cannot even imagine the depths of suffering they will have to endure.
That sounds somewhat reminiscent of brave new world where the populace was fed drugs and controlled ideas built on ideas while a brave few outcasts just lived on the outskirts
Or maybe it's just a common theme to highlight the dangers of distancing oneself fro, reality.
why is it that philosophy buffs consistently misunderstand Wittgenstein and then put words in his mouth that he never said nor meant?
reading your post is exactly this. just like the epic amounts of garbage other philosophers wrote garbling the Tractatus. it’s a book that is short and clear but times of wrong gibberish constitute the scholarship on it. why don’t philosophers just read it and STFU?
Not the prior anon but what should I read to understand Wittgenstein?
I've only come across him before when Robin Fox in his book "The Tribal Imagination" describes very briefly how he had been under the spell of wittgenstein >This book is also affectionately dedicated to the memory of Ernest Gellner, mentor, colleague, and friend. One great piece of luck in my life was to have him as a teacher of philosophy in my undergraduate years and thus receive an inoculation against relativism in all its forms. Gellner saved me from the spell of Wittgenstein; no good fairy ever put a kinder gift into an infant's cradle
There must be a valid critique of him?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what should I read to understand Wittgenstein?
The Wikipedia summary. Everything he said is trivial.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Everything he said is trivial precisely because he was so correct it became common knowledge.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Everything he said is trivial precisely because he was so correct it became common knowledge.
Can one of you homosexuals make an actual suggestion so I can read it and make up my own mind about the valdity of his ideas?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Just read his two books. Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, and the posthumous Philosophical Investigations in which he refutes his work in the Tractatus. Or just read his entry on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wait so he refutes his own philosophy?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Early Wittgenstein and Late Wittgenstein are almost like two different people. Early Wittgenstein is analytically precise and more-or-less tries to ground everything in logic and attack dogmatism. Late Wittgenstein comes to see appeals to logic as dogmatic, saying that language (including formal logic) is more a social game rather than something that actually manages to grasp at truth.
(In general though, if people don't take a critical stance to their own work they're brainlets)
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've found a copy of Tractatus in investigations, the former is quite compact while the latter seems much heavier
2 years ago
Anonymous
philosophical investigations was a very easy read imo. i wasnt a fan of tractatus
2 years ago
Anonymous
Perhaps it reflects a shift in his thought patterns with age?
Would you recommend any specific translation for the latter text?
feyerabend is a Black person moron who, like most philosophers, understood little to nothing about what he was talking about (which he's completely wrong)
Meaningful work has only been done by people who actually know what they're talking about. Take Norton, for instance. The guy knows physics. Feyerabend knows less than my hairy scrotum.
It's like you don't know why you think philosophy of science is a legitimate field
2 years ago
Anonymous
I didn't say anything about it being a legitimate field or not. I just said it's an NPC containment thread, and immediately you start sharting out preprogrammed and incongruent posts at me. LOL. Anyway, hiding this trash now. You fellas stay here. :^)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I didn't say anything
Yes, you didn't say anything of substance, just like all the philosophers of science. :^)
If scientests (all or, the ones with any decision making and agency or researchers or important responsible in charge ones in the fields) are not philosophers of science, it is the blind leading the blind.
Science is the philosophy of science; it is just that science and philosophy and philosophy of science can be done more and less perfectly and ideally (and that's not just my opinion, that is the essence of science progression and history and theory and fact).
>What is a phiilosophy?
Meta science.
Science experiments, science experiment apparatus, hypothesis, theory, where to look, what to chase, deciding what might be a promising lead or direction of research, does not occur on its own. Philosophy is how to think, the science and art of thought itself. The critique of possible criticism. Science requires thinking, and it is philosophical thinking that hopefully better than worse directs the directions of thought and action.
I've heard that before but I don't understand what it means, what is a philosophy; why does it matter over another?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wisdom. If all scientests, experimenters, researchers, over the age of highschool graduates, dissapeared, all the scientests would be highschool aged; how would they determine the organizational splitting of their labor, and what tasks to pursue in what ways?
Philosophy of science is more important at the fringes and cutting edges of science; if there is a big task that obviously needs to be done, not much meta thinking may be required, but just chilling away at a task. But I geuss everything about how to chip away, in what ways, how much, when and where, how to know when to stop, what to do after all the chipping away Is done, is philosophical.
In fields with a little more breathing room, uncertainty, namely theoretical fundamental physics (dealing with the largest, smallest, fastest, slowest, most rare and numerous things) there is much more room for interpretetions of data, the field is not so much so filled in with perfect understood obvious valid blatent truth. There is still mystery, confusion, complication, easy errors, etc. There is still room to debate what should be done, how and why, what is the current level of understanding, what is currently not known, how much is known about what is not fully known, what can possibly be done to know more.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Philosophy of science is more important at the fringes and cutting edges of science
Almost fell for the bait 7/10
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are there any examples of waves, that self or otherwise propagate, that are not the result of being a disturbed medium?
I just looked up the possibly fuzzy relation of oscillations and waves; said waves are oscillations that go somewhere.
The thing is; two people holding either ends of a jump rope picking their hands up and down, creates a wave, but the wave is so limited by the material, yes I goes somewhere, but not beyond the limit of that exact material;
So an electron inside and outside an atom;
First one asks, are the only excited electrons inside atoms?
The unexcited electron field exists, nucleai exist;. Nucleai capture a portion of the unexcited electron field and this creates an excited electron in it's boundary?
Or excited electrons exist amidst the unexcited electron field, and between atoms, and they are, what kind of waves traveling from A to Z?
Their body intrinsically waves, and/or their surroundings force their body to wave?
The unexcited electron field is packed full waving electrons?
https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0
[...]
[...]
[...]
2 years ago
Anonymous
Here
Are there any examples of waves, that self or otherwise propagate, that are not the result of being a disturbed medium?
I just looked up the possibly fuzzy relation of oscillations and waves; said waves are oscillations that go somewhere.
The thing is; two people holding either ends of a jump rope picking their hands up and down, creates a wave, but the wave is so limited by the material, yes I goes somewhere, but not beyond the limit of that exact material;
So an electron inside and outside an atom;
First one asks, are the only excited electrons inside atoms?
The unexcited electron field exists, nucleai exist;. Nucleai capture a portion of the unexcited electron field and this creates an excited electron in it's boundary?
Or excited electrons exist amidst the unexcited electron field, and between atoms, and they are, what kind of waves traveling from A to Z?
Their body intrinsically waves, and/or their surroundings force their body to wave?
The unexcited electron field is packed full waving electrons?
https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0
[...]
[...]
[...]
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's not philosophy but only a primitive failure to understand basic quantum electrodynamics. Those stupid platitudes would all be resolved if the poster had the minimum IQ required to understand the math.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how would they determine the organizational splitting of their labor, and what tasks to pursue in what ways?
By power of their high IQ
2 years ago
Anonymous
A philosophy is different than philosophy;
Philosophy is being open to asking questions and being very cautious and careful about assumptions.
A philosophy is a particular result of a particular amount of particular philosophical thinking; for example it is possible as a science researcher for me to have the philosophy, I don't care about science I just want to make a lot of money for myself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So a philosophy can be about anything? Is it just a word for how you can see the world?
So philosophy itself I assume is a way to discuss or study how these different views of the world play out?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
A philosophy is a certain amount/type of those thoughts
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
And the attempted navigation and proof of which ones of them are most valuable and valid
2 years ago
Anonymous
What would be an example of something like that?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What would be an example of something like that?
Any; a philosophy/s
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
This sentence has no meaning.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
What do you call the awareness that all tautological statements are tautological?
2 years ago
Anonymous
What would be an example of something like that?
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
This sentence has no meaning.
There is that which is impossible and that which is possible.
The totality of which is not known.
Having the awareness that you do not know the total possible relavant thoughts to have in relation to a situation or scenario (scientific, social, political, psychological) is hopefully motivation of an effort towards seeking the most valuable and valid possible thoughts in relation to an incomplete subject
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thank you, I think I'm beginning to understand a little better.
That would be an example of a helpful philosophy that can positively inform decision making steps.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What would be an example of a helpful philosophy that can positively inform decision making steps.
He's a pseud larper who mistakes being annoying for doing philosophy. His infantile provocations only serve to cover up the fact that he his mundane trifle is lacking in intellectual depth.
He makes autists seethe because he isn't one, and realizes that science is not some sort of coherent system, but a sort of organized activity like governments, with a messy history, and a miriad of inconsistencies.
Also, because he realizes that science claims authority and power outside its scope, which angers middle-managers with a STEM-degree and delusional academics thinking they should run the world.
Even brilliant people like Descartes just is testament to how moronic it is, you can be a great mathematician or scientist, and then your fever dream that ”uuuhhhh the mind and the body are actually two separate things, how do they communicate or always happen to exist together? Uuuh god!” Is treated as some turning point in western society
What a fricking joke of a field philosophy is, it’s worse than psychology, possibly even less scientific and reason driven than sociology
>”uuuhhhh the mind and the body are actually two separate things, how do they communicate or always happen to exist together? Uuuh god!”
he's right though?
How can you know how much you know?
When I find someone talking about something that I know more about than them I can tell that I know more than them.
I feel like people are more inclined to discuss the people instead of the ideas.
Its harder to stand out and consistently be special in philosophy, it's more rare. But this rarity, often called genius, is present in science fields too.
We worship Newton, and Einstein, and Bohr, and Maxwell, and Heisenberg, and Schrodinger, and Feynman, and etc.
Sometimes superstar worship is justified, because unique individuals can be uniquely special and consistently novely impressive.
So as there are stand out physicsts from history, there are stand out philosophers from history;
It's just the non stand out physicsts chip away at physics in research facilities and experiment labs, and the non stand out philosophers teach the next crop or philosophy teachers and make YouTube videos
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We worship Newton, and Einstein, and Bohr, and Maxwell, and Heisenberg, and Schrodinger, and Feynman, and etc.
Nope, only infantile pseuds do this. The truth of science is not affected by who discovered it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We worship
No
Worship was an exageration.
We celebrate Rare Unique Consistent Superstar Novel Inventive Creative Extraordinary Above Above Average Stand Out Genius Individuals.
They are rare in science, they are rare in philosophy.
Philosophy has more to do with a character and personality, possibly, because it can relate to, be relevant to, the day to day human sphere of livelihood and living. Science may not celebrate the personality as such as much, because it deals with the raw logic and reason of the non human raw material world, so there is not as much personality needed.
Though Newton and Descartes and Tesla and Einstein did have interesting unique personalities and characteristics, that were alluring and inspiring to humans,
An example of a kind of personality worship one might think of in philosophy would be Nietszche, but this is also because it is thought to degrees and person's total thoughts can be distilled into a way of being, way of life, way of seeing the world, a lifes philosophy.
But since all the low hanging fruit or political and sociological and personal philosophy has been plucked, the more punch packing efforts of philosophy went towards science, analytical philosophy, math and computers, Bertrand Russell, Quine, etc.
All in all being human there can be a charm, hypnosis, intoxication experienced from rare and mentally unique and powerful individuals,
Meanwhile I don't know the name of the guys that designed and built the most sophisticated technologies in use today
cringe. even worse than Kuhn
best philosopher of science: Wittgenstein
Is this a midwits argue about philosophy they don't understand thread
>Wittgenstein
fpbp
post argument
/thread
>best philosopher of science: Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein's doctrine of a thought that thinks itself without need of a human subject is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wittgenstein was a genius of unconsciousness, a hero of intellectual cowardice, the creator of a doctrine that reaches the heights of an almost unimaginable stupidity. In the Wittgensteinian world that awaits us, books will be read only by themselves, dismissing human readers. Knowledge will become a figure of speech to designate deposits of data that will be known to no one, and culture will become an electronic museum never visited. Of course, there will always be some individuals who will make efforts to remain conscious, and even the ruling elite will have some need for their services. But I cannot even imagine the depths of suffering they will have to endure.
That sounds somewhat reminiscent of brave new world where the populace was fed drugs and controlled ideas built on ideas while a brave few outcasts just lived on the outskirts
Or maybe it's just a common theme to highlight the dangers of distancing oneself fro, reality.
why is it that philosophy buffs consistently misunderstand Wittgenstein and then put words in his mouth that he never said nor meant?
reading your post is exactly this. just like the epic amounts of garbage other philosophers wrote garbling the Tractatus. it’s a book that is short and clear but times of wrong gibberish constitute the scholarship on it. why don’t philosophers just read it and STFU?
Not the prior anon but what should I read to understand Wittgenstein?
I've only come across him before when Robin Fox in his book "The Tribal Imagination" describes very briefly how he had been under the spell of wittgenstein
>This book is also affectionately dedicated to the memory of Ernest Gellner, mentor, colleague, and friend. One great piece of luck in my life was to have him as a teacher of philosophy in my undergraduate years and thus receive an inoculation against relativism in all its forms. Gellner saved me from the spell of Wittgenstein; no good fairy ever put a kinder gift into an infant's cradle
There must be a valid critique of him?
>what should I read to understand Wittgenstein?
The Wikipedia summary. Everything he said is trivial.
Everything he said is trivial precisely because he was so correct it became common knowledge.
Can one of you homosexuals make an actual suggestion so I can read it and make up my own mind about the valdity of his ideas?
Just read his two books. Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, and the posthumous Philosophical Investigations in which he refutes his work in the Tractatus. Or just read his entry on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wait so he refutes his own philosophy?
Early Wittgenstein and Late Wittgenstein are almost like two different people. Early Wittgenstein is analytically precise and more-or-less tries to ground everything in logic and attack dogmatism. Late Wittgenstein comes to see appeals to logic as dogmatic, saying that language (including formal logic) is more a social game rather than something that actually manages to grasp at truth.
(In general though, if people don't take a critical stance to their own work they're brainlets)
I've found a copy of Tractatus in investigations, the former is quite compact while the latter seems much heavier
philosophical investigations was a very easy read imo. i wasnt a fan of tractatus
Perhaps it reflects a shift in his thought patterns with age?
Would you recommend any specific translation for the latter text?
feyerabend is a Black person moron who, like most philosophers, understood little to nothing about what he was talking about (which he's completely wrong)
Meaningful work has only been done by people who actually know what they're talking about. Take Norton, for instance. The guy knows physics. Feyerabend knows less than my hairy scrotum.
which is why he was completely wrong*
With out knowing this guy, augments against one of his hypothesizes 0, opinion rejected.
Her criticism of Feyerabend was actually pretty accurate.
Like most of philosophy, it is a worthless field.
A fresh npc containment thread. Nice. Beep boop.
>Philosophy of science is a totally legitimate field bro, trust me
It's like you're trying to illustrate what I meant.
It's like you don't know why you think philosophy of science is a legitimate field
I didn't say anything about it being a legitimate field or not. I just said it's an NPC containment thread, and immediately you start sharting out preprogrammed and incongruent posts at me. LOL. Anyway, hiding this trash now. You fellas stay here. :^)
>I didn't say anything
Yes, you didn't say anything of substance, just like all the philosophers of science. :^)
Karl Popper
If scientests (all or, the ones with any decision making and agency or researchers or important responsible in charge ones in the fields) are not philosophers of science, it is the blind leading the blind.
Science is the philosophy of science; it is just that science and philosophy and philosophy of science can be done more and less perfectly and ideally (and that's not just my opinion, that is the essence of science progression and history and theory and fact).
What is a phiilosophy?
I'm confused at how this works.
>What is a phiilosophy?
Meta science.
Science experiments, science experiment apparatus, hypothesis, theory, where to look, what to chase, deciding what might be a promising lead or direction of research, does not occur on its own. Philosophy is how to think, the science and art of thought itself. The critique of possible criticism. Science requires thinking, and it is philosophical thinking that hopefully better than worse directs the directions of thought and action.
I've heard that before but I don't understand what it means, what is a philosophy; why does it matter over another?
Wisdom. If all scientests, experimenters, researchers, over the age of highschool graduates, dissapeared, all the scientests would be highschool aged; how would they determine the organizational splitting of their labor, and what tasks to pursue in what ways?
Philosophy of science is more important at the fringes and cutting edges of science; if there is a big task that obviously needs to be done, not much meta thinking may be required, but just chilling away at a task. But I geuss everything about how to chip away, in what ways, how much, when and where, how to know when to stop, what to do after all the chipping away Is done, is philosophical.
In fields with a little more breathing room, uncertainty, namely theoretical fundamental physics (dealing with the largest, smallest, fastest, slowest, most rare and numerous things) there is much more room for interpretetions of data, the field is not so much so filled in with perfect understood obvious valid blatent truth. There is still mystery, confusion, complication, easy errors, etc. There is still room to debate what should be done, how and why, what is the current level of understanding, what is currently not known, how much is known about what is not fully known, what can possibly be done to know more.
>Philosophy of science is more important at the fringes and cutting edges of science
Almost fell for the bait 7/10
Are there any examples of waves, that self or otherwise propagate, that are not the result of being a disturbed medium?
I just looked up the possibly fuzzy relation of oscillations and waves; said waves are oscillations that go somewhere.
The thing is; two people holding either ends of a jump rope picking their hands up and down, creates a wave, but the wave is so limited by the material, yes I goes somewhere, but not beyond the limit of that exact material;
So an electron inside and outside an atom;
First one asks, are the only excited electrons inside atoms?
The unexcited electron field exists, nucleai exist;. Nucleai capture a portion of the unexcited electron field and this creates an excited electron in it's boundary?
Or excited electrons exist amidst the unexcited electron field, and between atoms, and they are, what kind of waves traveling from A to Z?
Their body intrinsically waves, and/or their surroundings force their body to wave?
The unexcited electron field is packed full waving electrons?
https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0
Here
That's not philosophy but only a primitive failure to understand basic quantum electrodynamics. Those stupid platitudes would all be resolved if the poster had the minimum IQ required to understand the math.
>how would they determine the organizational splitting of their labor, and what tasks to pursue in what ways?
By power of their high IQ
A philosophy is different than philosophy;
Philosophy is being open to asking questions and being very cautious and careful about assumptions.
A philosophy is a particular result of a particular amount of particular philosophical thinking; for example it is possible as a science researcher for me to have the philosophy, I don't care about science I just want to make a lot of money for myself.
So a philosophy can be about anything? Is it just a word for how you can see the world?
So philosophy itself I assume is a way to discuss or study how these different views of the world play out?
Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
A philosophy is a certain amount/type of those thoughts
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
And the attempted navigation and proof of which ones of them are most valuable and valid
What would be an example of something like that?
>What would be an example of something like that?
Any; a philosophy/s
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
This sentence has no meaning.
>Philosophy is the awareness all possible thoughts are possible
What do you call the awareness that all tautological statements are tautological?
There is that which is impossible and that which is possible.
The totality of which is not known.
Having the awareness that you do not know the total possible relavant thoughts to have in relation to a situation or scenario (scientific, social, political, psychological) is hopefully motivation of an effort towards seeking the most valuable and valid possible thoughts in relation to an incomplete subject
Thank you, I think I'm beginning to understand a little better.
That would be an example of a helpful philosophy that can positively inform decision making steps.
>What would be an example of a helpful philosophy that can positively inform decision making steps.
Cautious careful dutiful dilligent robust resolute awesome amazing assured analyzing
I don't know who that is but his last name has invokes the desire to lay down work and have a beer with him.
his entire claim to fame is being contrarian to modern science in a serious way lol
honestly would fit in well with the midwits here
The best philosopher of science is Neil Tyson for saying "The good thing about science is that it's true irregardless of whether you believe in it."
sounds like something that sex pest would say
but science is a liar, sometimes
What's so wrong with Feyerabend?
He's a pseud larper who mistakes being annoying for doing philosophy. His infantile provocations only serve to cover up the fact that he his mundane trifle is lacking in intellectual depth.
he makes the resident pseuds angry
He's great because he makes everyone here assblasted.
He makes autists seethe because he isn't one, and realizes that science is not some sort of coherent system, but a sort of organized activity like governments, with a messy history, and a miriad of inconsistencies.
Also, because he realizes that science claims authority and power outside its scope, which angers middle-managers with a STEM-degree and delusional academics thinking they should run the world.
No, he and you are just a few among the large class of morons who are threatened by the successes of science.
Philosophy is moronic and gay
Even brilliant people like Descartes just is testament to how moronic it is, you can be a great mathematician or scientist, and then your fever dream that ”uuuhhhh the mind and the body are actually two separate things, how do they communicate or always happen to exist together? Uuuh god!” Is treated as some turning point in western society
What a fricking joke of a field philosophy is, it’s worse than psychology, possibly even less scientific and reason driven than sociology
>”uuuhhhh the mind and the body are actually two separate things, how do they communicate or always happen to exist together? Uuuh god!”
he's right though?
Uhh... Ever hear of a ying yang? Or symbiosis?
How is reincarnation possible?
I was saying the mind body problem is like the symbiosis of ying yang
>I was saying the mind body problem is like the symbiosis of ying yang
Meaning... There is a bit of mind in the body, and a bit of body in the mind??
Are all philosophical arguments circular?
Define: Philosophical Argument
Nah, some are just an infinite regress and others break the circularity by just affirming their baseless subjective premises very vehemently.
How can you know how much you know?
When I find someone talking about something that I know more about than them I can tell that I know more than them.
Philosophy is important, philosophers aren't
I feel like people are more inclined to discuss the people instead of the ideas.
That's because the ideas are trivial. Philosophy is mostly a celebrity worshipping cult.
Its harder to stand out and consistently be special in philosophy, it's more rare. But this rarity, often called genius, is present in science fields too.
We worship Newton, and Einstein, and Bohr, and Maxwell, and Heisenberg, and Schrodinger, and Feynman, and etc.
Sometimes superstar worship is justified, because unique individuals can be uniquely special and consistently novely impressive.
So as there are stand out physicsts from history, there are stand out philosophers from history;
It's just the non stand out physicsts chip away at physics in research facilities and experiment labs, and the non stand out philosophers teach the next crop or philosophy teachers and make YouTube videos
>We worship Newton, and Einstein, and Bohr, and Maxwell, and Heisenberg, and Schrodinger, and Feynman, and etc.
Nope, only infantile pseuds do this. The truth of science is not affected by who discovered it.
Worship was an exageration.
We celebrate Rare Unique Consistent Superstar Novel Inventive Creative Extraordinary Above Above Average Stand Out Genius Individuals.
They are rare in science, they are rare in philosophy.
Philosophy has more to do with a character and personality, possibly, because it can relate to, be relevant to, the day to day human sphere of livelihood and living. Science may not celebrate the personality as such as much, because it deals with the raw logic and reason of the non human raw material world, so there is not as much personality needed.
Though Newton and Descartes and Tesla and Einstein did have interesting unique personalities and characteristics, that were alluring and inspiring to humans,
An example of a kind of personality worship one might think of in philosophy would be Nietszche, but this is also because it is thought to degrees and person's total thoughts can be distilled into a way of being, way of life, way of seeing the world, a lifes philosophy.
But since all the low hanging fruit or political and sociological and personal philosophy has been plucked, the more punch packing efforts of philosophy went towards science, analytical philosophy, math and computers, Bertrand Russell, Quine, etc.
All in all being human there can be a charm, hypnosis, intoxication experienced from rare and mentally unique and powerful individuals,
Meanwhile I don't know the name of the guys that designed and built the most sophisticated technologies in use today
Yea yeah, whatever you say chief
>We worship
No
>*ends science and philosophy in your path*
Blocks your path.
What do they actually do on those "topic" & philosophy courses?