/lit/ - Literature

>>3161074
philosophy is more than just philosophy of the mind.

Because snotty middle-class white kids are willing to pay for a philosophy course.

Lrn2SupplyandDemand

why don't they kill all the shitposters and give us their assets?

Why not just do the opposite? Philosophy is cheaper and more efficient after all.

Because that would make humanity just like you, who shut down the thinking department but is left in a coma in front of your monitor.

And piss bottles by the side.

>>3161074
Because were would the logicians teach?

>>3161105
>implying philosophers are better thinkers than scientists

This is a serious answer to OP's statement.

Because any established power structure wants to continue its existence to the exclusion of all else.

>>3161111
>implying thinking is more methodical than abstract...

>>3161111
But Derrida uses so many big words!

>>3161132
lel

>>3161103
>And piss bottles by the side.
How the fuck did you know that?

>>3161136
Do you mean that epistemologically or neuroscientifically?

>>3161130
>abstract as a meaningful term to explain physical processes

>>3161125
I don't think philosophy right now is the one in power. It's really the other way around. Scientism runs rampant through the public at large and even moreso in academia. Have fun with your "experts."

>>3161152
>scientism

>>3161152
>Scientism runs rampant through the public at large and even moreso in academia.

Why can't you edgy teens grow up and acknowledge that every breakthrough founded on empirical data is consistent in it's accuracy. You may think 'scientism runs rampant' but you don't have to buy our laptops, use or medicine, or switch on our lights. You are quite welcome to stamp your feet and say "I know it looks like it will work, but you can't be 100% sure." But no, you use the fact that you have read some Nietzsche quotes on tumblr, and a wiki blurb on Locke, to completely reject science, yet fail to see the irony as you continue to use scientific discoveries to do everything.

>>3161212

What can science tell us about ethics? Go on...

>>3161222
Science doesn't pretend it can answer every question, unlike philosophy.

>>3161222

>>3161227

Philosophy doesn't necessarily pretend it can answer any questions

>>3161212
lolno. You are quite ignorant. If you think my objection to scientism is a silly and basic issue with skepticism about induction, you are the one whose research and information comes from tumblrs and wikipedia. Do you even read?

I sense no irony in the fact that I use a computer while slamming scientism. This is because I am not plagued with a need for one thing or idea to dominate my life. I can quite consistently concede that science has done some cool things—maybe. But this doesn't mean that I will become its slave.

>>3161239
Then it isn't useful at all.

>>3161234

Seriously? Sam Harris? Have you just never read any thinking on ethics or are you fucking with me?

>>3161245

What does 'utility' have to do with anything, and how would you define it?

>>3161245
While we can argue about what philosophy pretends to answer, we can be sure that people infected with scientism really do believe it can be used without doubt and with great efficacy to address every question of human life. This is clearly wrong, and philosophy seems to be the only discipline willing to call these people out.

>>3161263
well that's cool, but OP is talking making an assertion that a tax should be levied on math majors for redistribution, which is pragmatic concern.

So in this case, since, you know, we're not trying to get to the end of the reductionist argument, which isn't bad thing, but clearly not what's being set up in OP's shitty argument.

And since we're making pragmatic concerns based on a general shared model for reality, everyone in the thread went WAY out on a limb and considered the assertions from a pragmatic perspective based on that model.

Seriously, stop trying to blow everyone's mind. If you're not going to allow the word value to have a somewhat specific meaning then we can't do anything with your faggy argument.

>>3161301
second line should end in, "we are making pragmatic assumptions"

>>3161301
you're confusing this with the other shit science vs philosophy thread

>>3161305
>>3161301
How did I even get here, I thought I was on /fit/.

>>3161301

Philosophy is, pragmatically, as important as neuroscience.

>>3161245
>>3161239
Philosophy is about discovering the right questions

Vulgar empiricists are pig disgusting

>>3161074
Because you would then have an overfunded neuroscience program and an underfunded philosophy department

this thread is hysterical

>>3161313
What is importance?

>>3161390
If you don't know the meaning of words why are you on /lit/?

mfw all the so called empiricists in this thread are in the middle of a textbook philosophical argument

Those philosophy labs ARE getting pretty expensive. You may be onto something OP.

(Because the lib students pay for the sci equipment.)

being a philosophy major feels good right now

>>3161421
>the lib students pay for the sci equipment.

On second thought, both pay for the sports complexes nowadays.

What predictions has philosophy made?

>>3161234

In which Harris admits that his "Moral Landscape" is founded on shaky grounds and yet persists to dispense it.

>>3161434
>On second thought, both pay for the sports complexes nowadays.
Sports make a profit for colleges, so they actually subsidize the rest of the school.

The more you know, huh?

>>3161074
Because philosophy serves the repressive needs of the state. See Ideology, False Consciousness, Lukacs, etc.

>>3161146
How did you overcome the limits of empiricism to "know" that he has piss bottles?

Derivation from first cause is an acceptable response.

>>3161212
If you're a scientist then you ought to read Veblen and HPS about who controls science—protip: the value form.

Read Nick Rasmussen's _On Speed_

>>3161443
>Sports make a profit for colleges, so they actually subsidize the rest of the school.

>mfw im a neuroscientist
>mfw my ilk and i cure disease
>lol philosophy and the "mind"
>mfw the brain is just a computer, composed of biological circuits in the form of neurons

>philosophy

>>3161496

so reductionist

so practical and realistic

>>3161212
>consistent in it's accuracy.
>consistent in [it is] accuracy.

/lit/

On a side note: I think we need more philosophy and more neuroscience in our lives.

>>3161496
>neuroscience
>not an experimental science

>>3161671
hahahahahahahaahahahahah what

>Why don't they shut down all the philosophy departments and divert all funding to neuroscience programs?

By all means, do. Academic philosophy is a joke compared to the philosophy a person gains through lived experience.

I'm an English major btw

>>3161152
Either you are being willfully ignorant or are trolling.

I didn't want to have to put it this way, but I suppose I must.

Philosophy is a meme. Now, I know what are thinking, but please, look up what a meme is actually first.

Now as a meme, its only concern is reproduction and its continuance.

It's really interesting and amusing how these memes self-temperature, as they have also been called "viruses of the mind".

The most powerful and long-lasting meme in human history is religion though.

>>3161764
you get the zero out of ten-est 0/10 i have ever given. this is not even fun anymore

>>3161764
It's a "meme" in the sense that it's a mode of thought, but you seem to be implying that it's self-contained and doesn't offer any insights about the external world, which I disagree with.

>TFW THERE IS NO SELF

>>3161764

Every one of those sentences is a philosophical statement.

>>3161828
Everything is philosophical if you use a vague and ambiguous definition of philosophy.

>>3161836

Philosophy is by its very nature a vague and ambiguous pursuit - it's somewhat analogous to 'thinking'

>>3161840
Yeah, it's entirely passive as compared to science, which is entirely active.

>>3161814
no self?

>>3161848

In terms of what?

>>3161074
Because Asians can't into English.
And if the angsty teens left, who would we laugh at?

>>3161855
In terms of action.
As you said, philosophy is just thinking about things.
Science is about doing things.

>>3161862

Why do things without understanding why they should be done?

What can science tell us about ethics and social theory?

>>3161863
It's almost like you disregard the existence of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and every other social science that there is though for that.

Everything of value in philosophy have been taken out and become something else.

Probably the best use for a philosophy degree anymore is for getting a law degree. Since all it's about anymore is arguing.

>>3161862
what is the point of doing? for what? what is good?

>>3161873
Oh you and your metaphysical lunacy.

Simply put, science can only answer the hows of life. We need philosophy to answer the whys. sure, science can create amazing things like atomic bombs, but why should we?

>>3161871
>Everything of value in philosophy have been taken out and become something else.

Philosophy is the grandfather of all sciences and all humanities; everything, I mean EVERYTHING began as philosophy. I can see how pragmatists like you disregard philosophy as a useless pursuit. I ask you, is not the entire activity of life "useless"?

Consider these two scenarios: What if artificial intelligence becomes so advanced in the future that it resembles human intelligence? Or we find out that extraterrestrial life exists? How will you answer the questions that arise from those eventualities. You use philosophy, then rename it into something else when the particular field of study becomes self-sufficient.

Scientism seems to me an ideology of boxed up minds.

>>3161884
answer those questions using science, then I'll believe you

Go to bed Harris.

Science: intelligent people with autism
Philosophy: intelligent people that did drugs

>>3161912
Scientists: nerds
Philosophers: well-rounded intellectuals

>>3161903
It's fine to think about such things like that, but until they occur it is more or less impossible to develop a way to approach it due to so many unknown variables.

If (or when) such things happen, regardless of how much thought has been put in beforehand, what will happen will be determined by the circumstances of the situation.

If only it were simple enough resolve problems through philosophy (not that science is doing much better, in the short term), maybe the seemingly unlimited amount of world crises would be the solved by now.

Oh you guys.
Science is just applied philosophy.
Science is just some philosophical position put into practice.

>>3161926
>problems
>world crisis
>solving them
Why must everything have a practical value in order to justify its existence? Art is the highest thing, and it is completely useless.

>>3161937
So you agree philosophy is of no practical value?
Okay, well, then I guess I have nothing else to argue then.

>>3161937
I must also add enlightenment, which is completely useless yet highly sought after (at least in the Zen tradition).

>>3161937
>Art is the highest thing,
Depends on your philosophical position, does it?

>and it is completely useless.
Depends on your philosophical position, does it?

>>3161943
I agreed to no such thing. I merely said usefulness is not a requisite for pursuits such as philosophy to be treated the same importance as science. As a matter of fact I would say that philosophy was the most important field since it birthed all the others. Like >>3161930 said, science is applied philosophy.

Just curious, what is your opinion of useless pursuits such as art and music? Or do yoy have some sociological or biological explanation as to its purpose in society?

>>3161074
"Hey, I just invented a bacteria that eats braincells."

"Oh, really? What are the implications of such a powerful weapon?"

"Lol, IDK, thinking's not my job."

Scientists operate on many assumptions. Philosophers try to work with little to none.

>>3161930
Science is applied philosophy in the same way that landing on the moon is just applied science fiction.

>>3161971
think this one needs a few more hours in school

>>3161956
btw, I am also >>3161930
and I'm just playing around.
I can prove this if needed by deleting the posts.

Anyway,
>what is your opinion of useless pursuits such as art and music

First off, as far as I am concerned, many academic fields anymore seem only to exist to exist because of their inertia of existence.
Back to the "meme" post which isn't the best explanation, but it'll do.

As for art and music, they are the same as any creative endeavor, such as writing.

They very much so have very many practical applications.

>>3161971
Indeed.
Reproduction is applied biology.
Murder is applied anatomy.
Poisoning is applied physiology.
etc, etc

>>3161976
Needs to enroll in school first to need a few 'more' hours.

>>3161981
Haha, I had a feeling you were playing both sides of the argument.

Philosophy will exist as long as thinking exists. Everyone, from qualified philosophers to babies, engages in philosophy. Denying the significance of philosophy IS philosophy.

Saying that universities should stop funding philosophy departments is like saying we need less higher order critical thinking. Which, if we are to live in an ever more scientifically advanced society, we need more of, not less--lest we become sleeping automatons: slaves to technology, slaves to desire and impulse.

Why don't they shut down all the academic departments and divert all funding to entertainment programs?

>>3161987
And what is musical composition?

>>3161976
>>3161990
Upset that nobody outside of academia and message boards takes your worthless, unfalsifiable, yuppie "knowledge" seriously?

philo is all about analyzing fundamental beliefs/questions that can't be tackled through empirical observation (ie science)

>>3161995
> Which, if we are to live in an ever more scientifically advanced society, we need more of, not less--lest we become sleeping automatons: slaves to technology, slaves to desire and impulse.

Shouldn't a person already be like that without formal training in philosophy?

>>3161074
Why don't they abolish capital and divert all social and political power to the working class?

>>3161990
The word "few" in this context is not a mathematical comparison, but a categorical term similar to "some" (some more hours)

1/10 for making me type that; you guys argue about anything

>>3161999
Music is applied physics.

[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and ... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

— Feyerabend

>>3162008
>you guys argue about anything
But that's the essence of philosophy!
No matter how trivial, how mundane, how seemingly insignificant it seem, it must be argued for centuries by countless people!

>>3162003
Formal training in philosophy is advanced study for more serious individuals, as not everyone is the same and some people will want to go deeper into philosophy than others. Through the history of philosophy you will learn what others have to say about some common philosophical topics, so no one needs to rethink thousands of years worth of contemplation. In this way, humanity can build a body of knowledge; it is neither useful nor useless (the more we learn the less we know etc etc) but we take it as it is.

>>3162013
Only the individual can know if they were being authentic in their intention to add to the discussion, or merely trolling to clog up a thread on 4chan.

>remember anon, there is no happiness in inauthenticity

>>3162006
>I feel emotions because physics touches my >that feel neurons hur

>>3162012
>science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

True. I worked hard to gather my flock. I will not give it up so easily to some scientist.

>>3162012
I don't understand this quote. I thought Feyerabend was anti-scientism?

>>3162035
>no happiness in inauthenticity
How do you know that?
Are you saying that unhapiness is an inherent property of inauthenticity?

>>3162006
fuck off with that BS

>>3162046
How is that claim bullshit?

>>3162044
One can know that through reflection; try it for yourself. I believe you will come to the same conclusion (not through an intellectual path, mind you). Just reflect on whether you can live happily by being inauthentic. I won't go into a lengthened logical slugfest regarding what is a property of which and all that nonsense.

Not all truths are determined by experiments and/or logic, especially truths about how one should live as a human.

inb4 clever reply poking holes in what I said

>>3162049
>this kid is serious

>>3162049
NOPE NO SUCH THING AS QUALIA WOO WOO WOO LYL U R A THEEIST WERS UR GAWD NAO FUCKING STONE-AGE ILLITERATE SCUM

>>3162049
You people are so daft

>>3162064
>generic condescending remark

>>3162065
Oh you. So silly.

>>3162049
I like how all the responses to this are:
"I disagree" and nothing more than that.

>>3162067

You remind me of all my high school science teachers who were all fat, old and smug. They acted as though knowledge was superior to wisdom

>>3162074
Because it's sophomoric and not worthy of a well thought out reply that will be ignored anyway seeing as you've already set your mind

>>3162075
>implying "wisdom" is anything more than heuristic pattern analysis.

>>3162079
Aren't most people with some sort of philosophical position set in their mind?

What's the use with arguing with anyone?

>>3162081
WHOOPS
>heuristic pattern analysis and recognition

>>3162081
First consciousness is little microtubules, then music is physics, now wisdom is pattern analysis? As if one can make a computer program that will plot out the statistically wisest decisions. What the fuck science, philosophy is not your enemy, it's your goddamn dad, stop trying so hard to put it down you teenager

btw just so you guys know I'm the only person in here and I typed all the posts and the responses lel

>>3162089
>As if one can make a computer program that will plot out the statistically wisest decisions.

It shall be as thus.
All shall be controlled by algorithms.
We eagerly rush into self-induced obsolescence.

>>3162094
It's true.
I wouldn't lie to you.
Ever.
About anything.
Ok?

Scientism is the tool of the status quo so they can put statistics in advertising and have logical explanations for laws and make claims backed up by experts doing research

THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE

>>3162106
Why should one think individually?
Perhaps collectivism is a better choice.

>>3162115
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps neither. Perhaps both. What is better? Better for the individuals or the society? What is society? What is individual? What is "I"? Do I exist? If I do, am I perceiving reality as it is? What are dreams? What is? What? ?
??

>>3162141
And thus, the philosopher has a breakdown.
Alas.

>>3162144
You are a philosopher as well, only you love arguing for arguments sake and arguing all sides of an argument. If my feeling is correct you have been writing the majority of the posts above. Good night to you sir and may you find happiness in your life.

>>3162074
>>3162042

>>3162089
Star Trek is at fault, you know. When the writers misunderstood "logic" so poorly they made it into an alien anti-religion for Spock, they distorted for millions what logic and philosophy actually were and laid the pop-culture foundation for scientism.

Is this when he assures us he was only pretending to be retarded?

I JUST ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE POSTS.
WHAT DO I DO GUYS!?!?!?!

>>3162172
Yes, this is the point where I put your mind at ease and let you have the comfort of thinking me retarded rather than put you through the agony of cognitive dissoance.

I am a humanitarian, if nothing else.

>>3162159
>If my feeling is correct you have been writing the majority of the posts above

Just showing it for what it is.

>>3162175
no I did that stop pretending to be me

I want to meet you whoever you are

>>3162187
If by "you", you mean "the guy who deleted all his posts in this thread as sometimes he does", then please define "meet".

If you simply mean "talk with more", then I can simply resume posting with my tripcode, unless you have something else mind.

Yes, I have been known to be a tripfag under multiple names. Who would have guessed.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/reports/post-count
My highest count only has about 700 though.

You never know, there's always the chance you already know me without knowing it.

>>3162202
Just say your tripcodes so I know who you are next time. My name will be Anonymous

>>3162207
I was kidding.
The problem with using a tripcode is then you can't pretend to be multiple people without multiple tripcodes.

If you must know, the name I most posted under was "Bothersome".

I was kidding about resuming usage of tripfagging though.

If you really need for some reason, to contact me afterwards, you should leave some way for me to contact you and I will.

Welp, I guess that's the nature of anonymity

Cheers mate

P.S. I looked up Bothersome and it wasn't on that list you slippery bastard

>>3162230
It wasn't, no.
But the tripcode is.
I just seeing if you knew me.

Oh what the hell. Here's an email randlit@yahoo.com
In the slim chance that you will become someone famous or other

>>3162234
>that feel when I probably won't reply if you do contact me

>>3161909
no

>>3161212
Science != scientism.

>every breakthrough founded on empirical data is consistent in it's accuracy

Until another breakthrough comes out that shows the last breakthrough was either incomplete or totally wrong.

>>3162607
NO.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.

READ THEM.

Because neuroscientists are incapable of understanding logic. That's not even a joke; half of neuroscience journal articles that use statistics have at least one serious logical fallacy.

Maybe if you guys studied philosophy some more you would be better. But there's Prozac for my worries, so thanks guys.

>>3162625
Feyerabend wasn't against science as much as he was the exaltation of it to official state ideology (for lack of a better phrase.)

Against Method isn't arguing against science, but against the idea that scientific reasoning is supreme above all others (which is itself an anti-scientific viewpoint.)

Maybe I misread him. I don't know.

>>3161849
Nondualism superficially resembles solipsism, but from a nondual perspective solipsism mistakenly fails to consider subjectivity itself. Upon careful examination of the referent of "I," i.e. one's status as a separate observer of the perceptual field, one finds that one must be in as much doubt about it, too, as solipsists are about the existence of other minds and the rest of "the external world." (One way to see this is to consider that, due to the conundrum posed by one's own subjectivity becoming a perceptual object to itself, there is no way to validate one's "self-existence" except through the eyes of others—the independent existence of which is already solipsistically suspect!) Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment.

>>3162632
The point of Lakatos and Feyerabend is that scientists cannot construct stable disciplinary or epistemological meanings—Kuhn to the nth degree.

>Until another breakthrough comes out that shows the last breakthrough was either incomplete or totally wrong.

Worse: science is always a contingent sociological practice governed more by power relations than by ideas. The utility of science is just as futile. Both end up being governed by dominant modes of being grounded in material production.

Physics' methodological contingency is rooted more in the States' demand that all forms of materiality be permuted and weaponised, than in a stable understanding of how to verify claims or what objects of inquiry ought to exist. This is especially true in fields where PhD entry is so thoroughly socio-culturally restricted.

There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

Philosophy's really fucking cheap OP

>>3161814
He looks so old in this picture.

>>3161814
gee, it took you only some 2500 to figure out, you guys are making progress

>>3162720
*2500 years

>>3162703

>There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

>There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

>There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

>There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

>There is no "scientific method," only a war of all against all governed in the interests of capital.

>Worse: science is always a contingent sociological practice governed more by power relations than by ideas.

In what hypothetical world would scientific practice not be subject to power relations? Can you actually prove the primacy of power relations in the study of say, quantum mechanics or even the thread's topic of neuroscience? Please point to the evidence itself, not what gets funded for what purpose, obviously those serve the interests of capital and the state.

> The utility of science is just as futile. Both end up being governed by dominant modes of being grounded in material production.

Nothing about the utility of vaccination, the abundance of food, water, and electricity you enjoy or the technology you use to post this online is futile. It's indisputable that you implicitly accept the opposite of what you're saying by participating here. What's worse, polio or the bourgeoisie? You took the former as a given.

>Physics' methodological contingency is rooted more in the States' demand that all forms of materiality be permuted and weaponised, than in a stable understanding of how to verify claims or what objects of inquiry ought to exist.

We already have the capacity to end the world with nuclear weapons. Welcome to 1960. No one's going to downplay the amount of R&D that goes into weaponry to sustain American imperialism, but reading imperialism into the basics of science is outrageous slander from armchair revolutionaries.

>>3161451
>Because philosophy serves the repressive needs of the state.

That's why publicly funded institutions disseminate these ideas.

And yes, I mean that in the serious tinfoil hat sense more than the snarky one.

>>3162740
This post is a response to this:

>>3162703

>>3162703
hahahaha