/lit/ - Literature

>>5320989
Go to bed, Schopenhauer, you're drunk.

>that sad faggot who is always trying to say Vedic dingdong parable #89492 preempted Plato's forms
>it's always some shit like "when the tiger sits, he is alone" with eight hundred pages of bogus exegesis

Why bother with philosophy if science made it obsolete?

>>5321798
Becoz scienz is lying to u

>>5321798
How Can Science Be Real if Our Philosophy Isn't Real

I want real philosophy, not
>man who drink water not thirsty
type bullshit.

>>5321812
Your pic is math and not philosophy.

>>5321812
>man who drink water not thirsty
hahahaa

>>5321815
>logic
>not philosophy
ayy lmao

>>5321824
Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosophers. Did you miss the last 200 years of history?

>>5321815
Formal logic != math, buddy

>>5321830
Oh, I forgot Frege and Russell weren't philosophers

>>5321830
Philosophers invented logic.

>>5321833
Are you retarded? Formal logic is a field of math. It was constructed by mathematicians and is being researched by mathematicians. Understanding, let alone researching, any non-trivial results in logic requires profound knowledge of math.

>>5321839
They were mathematicians. They had degrees in math and worked at the math departments of their universities.

>>5321830
Logicians are philosophers, you massive retard.

>>5320989
>Why bother with Western philosophy if Indians had already covered all that material and more?
Because they didn't. Thanks to a Greek move from mythos to logos (and Plato especially) we have developed our own stupidities, stupidities that you can't find in Indian myths.

>>5321842
Nope. What philosophers of ancient times called logic has nothing to do with our modern conception of formal logic.

>>5321847
Logicians are mathematicians. Every contemporary researcher in logic has a math degree.

>>5321846
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS[55] (/ˈrʌsəl/; 18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, social critic and political activist.[56][57]
You're a massive pedant.

>>5321852
The best philosophers also have math degrees.

>>5321852
>Every contemporary researcher in logic has a math degree
Yeah, it helps with logic. Bit logic is not mathematics.

>>5321857
Pedantery is important in STEM. We are not as unrigorous as philosophers.

>>5321858
A mathematician can also do philosophy. The other direction has not been observed yet. Learn your natural hierarchy of academic fields.

>>5321868
Logic is a field of math.

>>5321881
>Logic is a field of math.
No it isn't.

>>5321884
Yes, it is.

>>5321887
No it isn't. Who told you that?

>>5321884
Field is a logic of math.

>>5321891
Yes, it is. My education told me that. Please step out of your basement and enroll in a university.

>>5321895
>Yes, it is. My education told me that
You were lied to.

>>5320989
Because Epicurus did it better.

But don't lump yhwh and Jesus into western tradition. They're as Asiatic as your Indian stuff

>>5321897
Don't embarrass yourself. It's getting pathetic.

>>5321901
3/10 I'm bored now.

Chinese/Japanese philosophy >>>> Indian philosophy

>>5321909
It's time to stop posting. You've been proved wrong. Accept it and go on with your life.

>>5321898
It always seemed weird to me how Christianity and Judaism were associated with Western tradition when they're both Abrahamic religions originating in the middle-east, same as Islam.

>>5321913
... >>>> Western philosophy >>>> Chinese/Japanese philosophy >>>> Indian philosophy >>>> Western philosophy >>>> ...

>>5321914
Yeah, sure, bro. I'll tell Aristotle he wasn't a philosopher.

>>5321928
What the fuck? Never go full retard.

>>5321931
I know, that would be like saying logic isn't a field of philosophy.

>>5321922
science >>>> philosophy

>>5321928
Aristotle didn't even exist.

>>5321933
Logic is a field of math.

>>5321934
Science is a subset of philosophy

>>5321934
science = one type of philosophy, mostly applied and non-reflective of its assumptions

>>5321939
Science is the opposite of philosophy.

>>5321941
Science and philosophy are opposites. Science is objective and strives to explain observable phenomena. It requires intelligence, creativity and profound education. Philosophy is subjective talk about untestable opinions without any impact in reality. It requires literally no prerequisite knowledge other than a basic grasp of language.

>>5321941
Said subset > philosophy as a whole

Better? Clear? Or do we challenge the concept of "wholeness"?

>>5321943
I'd encourage you to base your opinions on something outside of 4chan, but what do I know? I'm only a cognitive neuroscientist who reads philosophy for funsies

>>5321958
Tell me about the hard problem of consciousness. When are we gonna solve it?

>>5321957
How could a subset be greater than its superset? lrn2math

>>5321965
Are you ,mentally retarded? The subset of people with IQ > 150 is better than the whole set of all people.

>>5321961
There's not really a problem. Consciousness is an emergent epiphenimenon of the architecture of the brain.

>>5321953
>Science and philosophy are opposites.
There you go again with your faith in opposites. I recommend you read Hegel and try to "solve" them if they bother you so much. Or, you know, you can just realize that there's no such thing as opposites. You're more metaphysical than you care to admit by believing in them.

>>5321975
That's not an answer. It's a meaningless and empty banality without any explanatory value. Thanks for confirming that you do indeed know nothing about neuroscience.

>>5321967
I said greater, not better

>>5321984
"Better" is an order relation. Order relations are usually denoted by the greater-than sign.

>>5321980
OK, I guess I'll go give my PhD back for my being able to adequately explain that "the hard problem of consciousness" isn't really something

>>5321991
The question for a mechanism of how subjective experience arises is a very important question for neuroscience. Please stop lying on the internet. You do not have a PhD, you most likely haven't even started your undergrad yet.

>>5321993
Subjective experience is a consequence of how the brain stores sensory data. I thought everyone knew this. There's only a problem if, for some reason, you still think consciousness is somehow non-physical.

>>5321993
>The question for a mechanism of how subjective experience arises is a very important question for neuroscience.

No, consciousness isn't a topic of neuroscience. Neuroscience studies the nervous system and closely related support structures. There is no difference for neuroscientists to examine either a supposedly "conscious" being or a zombie with identical behavioral output and neural assay.

>>5322004
⇒Subjective experience is a consequence of how the brain stores sensory data
That's not an answer. I asked for a mechanism. You did not convey any information in your reply. Your answer is as retarded as claiming that the mechanisms of quantum mechanics are fully explained by saying "lol it's physical". We know that it's physical. You did not even understand the question. How low is your IQ?

⇒you still think consciousness is somehow non-physical.
It is definitely phsyical and I'm asking for a mechanism. Do you have one? Obviously you don't. Please stop pretending you know anything about neuroscience. It is more than obvious that you're a high schooler or a dropout with nothing more than youtube education.

>>5322004
>Subjective experience is a consequence of how the brain stores sensory data.
I'm not that reactive anon you're replying to, but how does neuroscience interpret consciousness based on their observations? Is it a sort of reflection of sensory data back to themselves, sensory data being "aware" of themselves? Are there any observations being made about self-reflectiveness of data/neurons at all?

>>5322004
what lacks in your "explanation" is a description of the actual mechanism (the consequential relationship) by which stored data is converted into subjective experience.

>>5322013
⇒No, consciousness isn't a topic of neuroscience.

Are you retarded? Consciousness is the most important topic of neuroscience. Since philosophy fails to solve the problem, it is even more important that scientists finally tackle it.

>>5322018
Now I'm confused. I thought you were arguing with arrowslut.

>>5322026
Arrow, how does it feel to define yourself by resenting something (i.e. philosophy)? Is this not a Christian morality?

>>5322034
⇒how does it feel to define yourself by resenting something
feels good

⇒Is this not a Christian morality?
Morality and christianity are spooks.

>>5322026
Repetition won't make you less wrong. Untestable and unobservable nonsense is meaningless to and not within the domain of science. Even referring to consciousness as a "problem" is a shaky assertion and debatable.

>>5321957
You replying to the post above mine. I gave my reasons for science not being better:
>non-reflective of its assumptions

>>5322038
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Have some background on what you're arguing before you continue.

>>5321984
You know damn well what people mean when they use these <>

>>5322026
>>5322037
And Arrow has entered the fight.
How's your morning?

>>5322037
>Morality and christianity are spooks.
OK, you philosopher, you.

>>5322043
I have plenty of background way above some poorly written wiki article, thanks. Do you have anything of substance to present or would like to continue personally attacking me instead?

>>5321917
That's probably because you're a half-educated retard.

>>5322018
I study neural architecture of second-language development. It's not that important to me that I can't copy-paste for you an easy to understand mechanism for consciousness, because it's not really interesting.
>>5322025
Stored data isn't "converted" into subjective experience. It is the thing itself.

>>5322038
You cannot deny your own consciousness without making yourself look retarded. It's like running around and telling everyone that your brain is lacking a function every normal person has.

>>5322042
As long as science works it has no reason to reflect upon its assumptions.

>>5322054
Anon's not denying it as such. He's denying it as a particular sort of problem.

>>5322050
No, I think he knows *why* we have these filthy cults contaminating our culture, proximity, but it's just a wonder how it could continue with so many people buying into the caucasian Jesus.

>>5322054
The short answer is that consciousness doesn't actually exist in the same way that people's commonsense intuitions tell them it does.

>>5322054
Tell me how I can figure out that I even have this thing you call 'consciousness'. "I just know it" might settle as enough in the pornography industry, but it doesn't work in science or study based on rational inquiry.

>>5322065
>muh brown Jesus

L-O-L

If Gilgamesh was white, why can't Jesus have been white?

>>5321842
logic existed before philosophers, they merely gave it a name. Chew on that, atheists!

>>5322051
This answer is tautological. I'm conscious because i have a brain that stores sensory data. Then, why storing data would be EQUAL to being able to have subjective experience?
It's not much of an explanation: how something could be at the same time a physical entity and a subjective experience?

>>5322051
⇒Stored data isn't "converted" into subjective experience. It is the thing itself.
So your computer's hard disk has subjective experience? Panpsychism and animism belong on >>>/x/. Do you also believe in demons?

>>5322044
⇒How's your morning?
It's 4pm. I wouldn't call that "morning". My morning was fine though. Thanks for asking.

>>5322065
Racism much? Judaism and Christianity are particular value systems catering to a particular type of people and lives, and their "contamination" should be interpreted from that perspective. That is to say, there was no pure contamination, "caucasian race" apparently already had the need for such value systems.

>>5322076
What's a Caucasian?
I'm not from /pol/, man.

>>5322063
If you are aware of your consciousness, you also have to acknowledge that it requires a scientific explanation. This is the hard problem.

>>5322069
That's a claim. Do you have evidence to back it up?

>>5322075
Great, I see you understood the hard problem.

>>5322060
Except it's trying to tell us that it works for everything and it forces a particular world-view and values long with it.

>>5322091
Values are a spook. Science doesn't engage in spooks.

>>5322091
Science makes no such claims. You know nothing about science. Stop basing your world view on a moronic misinterpretation of some uneducated kid's youtube comments.

>>5322096
Value-neutrality is a spook. This much should be obvious from the concept of a spook itself.

>>5322084
Generally, a computer hard disk doesn't have the same kind of information architecture (especially including sensory feedback) as conscious brains. But it's not unthinkable that a man-made computer, wired up the right way, would have subjective experience. That's kind of what AI is.

>>5322089
Gilgamesh had fair skin according to the physical description of him getting sunburn in Tablet IX of the Gilgamesh Epic.

Fair-skinned people live in the Near East, and have lived in the Near East for a long time. In large numbers, even more so in the past.

No-one actually knows Jesus' race, but he is described as fair-skinned in Revelations and I claim it is perfectly likely that he was, in fact, fair-skinned.

>>5322090
What problem? Here's an equally incoherent problem for you. I'll make up this thing, call it 'gejlfsdkljdwglkasdjhgsdgmasd'. Now go out and tell me what it is. It's self-evident that everyone has it. Good luck.

>>5322100
>Science makes no such claims.
It doesn't need to make any claims. Because the fanatics of science are making them. Like arrow.

>>5322102
So consciousness is more than "stored data"? It also requirs a specific "information architecture"? Tell me more about your mindless and insignificant teenaged pseudo-philosophy. You are baselessly talking out of your ass and you have no fucking idea of neuroscientific models of consciousness.

>>5322107
You know intuitively what is meant by the word "consciousness". You know it very well but you fail to verbalize it rigorously.

>>5322109
⇒the fanatics of science
No such thing. Science is not a religion. Science does not need belief or faith. It solely operates on facts and rationality.

have some OC

>>5322125
>women
>science nerds

kek

Otherwise 10/10

>>5322106
>Gilgamesh had fair skin according to the physical description of him getting sunburn
Moot.
>No-one actually knows Jesus' race
He was supposed to be Jewish. Not the caucasian variety of course since they hadn't converted just then.

"White", or tannable, as separated from "caucasian" and "western" are all getting tangled here.
NO, the peoples of Europe didn't readily accept this cult without generations of struggling. Once contaminated, they continued to struggle with the exact ways to observe it. It wasn't a good match for western culture so they adapted it. Peter wouldn't like the Catholic church at all.

>>5322084
A-ha. Now I at least have a timezone. Have a good night than.

>>5322125
Doesn't that mean it requires beliefs regarding facts and rationality?

>>5322134
Facts

These aren't things you "believe" in. They FACT.

>>5322125
⇒Science is not a religion.
You are pretty religious about science. When asked to argue for your belief in facts and objectivity of observations you turn to simply denying that it is a belief without providing any argument.

>>5322111
If you read the thread, I wasn't the first one to use the phrase "stored data". I'm trying to put things in terms easy for a layman to understand. If you want the long answer, I can direct you to it, but it's nothing I feel like typing with my thumb on a Chinese cartoon image board. I don't know why you're so mad tho.

>>5322137
Fact is manu-fact-ured. Science is a fact-ory of facts.

>>5322134
Facts are those things that remain the same irregardless of whether you believe in them or not.

>>5322128
Lots of my colleagues at my lab are women.

>>5322150
>irregardless
Stahp

>>5322146
No no no. It's a *subset* of philosophy that does away with the manufacturing of "facts" or what I'd call suppositions.

Facts are already exiting/solid real things.

>>5322140
⇒You are pretty religious about science.
I don't have an altar dedicated to science. I don't read science books without critically questioning their contents. I don't pray to science. I haven't killed anyone yet in the name of science.

>>5322144
⇒easy for a layman to understand
You are the layman. Don't pretend to know something about neuroscience just because you watched a youtube video aimed at high schoolers.

>>5322150
>Facts are those things that remain the same irregardless of whether you believe in them or not.
Why is this statement itself not a belief?
>inb4 it's a fact
Yeah, give me objective observation of this fact.
>inb4 science as a phenomenon is a such observation of this statement
You're just going in circles. For possibility of facts to be proved as a fact you already need a belief in facts.

>>5322157
>already exiting/solid real things.
>muh metaphysics

>>5322158
As I mentioned, I'm a scientist studying the neural components of second-language development and acquisition. I don't intend to "solve the hard problem of consciousness" because as anon said, it's debatable that it's really a thing.

>>5322163
NURSE! NURSE! HE NEEDS HIS HELMET! QUICK!

>>5322163
I cannot argue with someone who doesn't even accept the notion of "facts".

>>5322158
⇒I don't have an altar dedicated to science. I don't read science books without critically questioning their contents. I don't pray to science. I haven't killed anyone yet in the name of science.
Good tactic, ignoring what I said in the rest of the post, taking things out of context. Pretty typical of religious people, don't you think?

>>5322171
LOL. Might as well say:
>I cannot argue with someone who doesn't even accept the notion of "God".

>>5321953

These statements require that you assume a lot of things:

>1. There is such a thing as objective truth.
>2. This objective truth is inherently more valuable than any alternatives.
>3. Opposites exist.
>4. Language is complete and correct enough to express philosophical thought without the assistance of symbolic logic.

and probably many other things as well. I'm not necessarily disputing any particular assumption that I just listed, but neither am I accepting them out of hand. Science, as someone else points out, is simply a field of philosophy that takes a lot of premises for granted before it begins its investigation (for example, science assumes the only source of knowledge to be our senses). Ever heard of Philosophy of Science? It basically exists to refine the underlying assumptions that define science. So no, science is not "better" than philosophy; in fact, it depends on philosophy for it's very operation.

>>5321953

>>5322169
⇒it's debatable that it's really a thing.

There is nothing debatable about it. Humans have subjective experience and this observation requires a scientific explanation. If you don't understand this, then you definitely know nothing about neuroscience, or science in general. You are talking like a 14 year old fedoratard who mistakenly believes he figured it all out. Cringeworthy.

>>5322171
Sam's not wrong and he's a smart guy, but god damn I just want to beat that shit-eating smirk right off of his face.

>>5322170
Wow, great strategy, calling someone insane because you don't agree with them. Worked in many situations in history, right?

>>5322150
>irregardless
please please kill yourself, i'm not being a douche /lit/ autist right now, i mean literally kill yourself

>>5322114
You know intuitively what is meant by the word "gejlfsdkljdwglkasdjhgsdgmasd". You know it very well but you fail to verbalize it rigorously.

>>5321941
>non-reflective of its assumption
sounds like you better reflect on that assumption...

>>5322182
>Humans have subjective experience
Prove it.

Can someone explain the anti-science stance that seems to run rampant on /lit?

I'm by no means a scientist but always took it for granted that science is how "know" things.

Haven't we learned a lot about the universe, from the particle level up to galaxy superclusters because scientists test their theories and those that don't hold are discarded? Am I wrong?

Are people really arguing that science is on the same level as religious faith?

Sorry if that's a gross generalization, but that is just the feeling I get when browsing threads where science comes up.

>>5322178
These premises are self-evident. Denying them is a futile exercise in kindergarten tier pseudo-intellectualism and not socially acceptable for anyone older than 6.

⇒for example, science assumes the only source of knowledge to be our senses
Wrong. Knowledge can also be established by deriving logical conclusions from observations.

⇒Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of science does literally nothing more than verbalizing trivialities. It leads to no deeper insight whatsoever. Wow, if an observation contradicts a theory, then the theory is falsified? What a great and novel wisdom! I would of never expected this! /sarcasm

>>5322187
Someone get this hothead outta here.

>>5321917
the west took christianity and used it to express its own metaphysical content

>>5322191
>"i'm not being a douche /lit/ autist right now"
>I want you to kill yourself because you said "irregardless"

kek

>>5322150
What a nonsensical statement. Fact is just another word ford 'thing i believe to be real'. If I do not believe in a thing, I cannot even appreciate it being real regardless.

>>5322204
>>5322194
Wow, you must be really proud of having understood the hard problem for the first time. Are you literally 5 years old?

>>5322203
Most of science doesn't, because it is applications of assumptions. I mean, that's what is supposed to be good about science, right?

>>5322207
>Wow, if an observation contradicts a theory, then the theory is falsified? What a great and novel wisdom!
>Popper did nothing new
>everybody knew everything, always
>how to form theories is knowable a priori
for someone who considers himself rational, you carry around quite a bit of metaphysical baggage.

>>5322207
we observe things by using our senses,
our perception of things depends on a number of factors (non-objective)
You are wrong.

>>5322224
I'm just applying common sense.

>aryan invaders
>not western

kenan & kek

>>5322224
Yeah, arrow is just a trapped-in-the-closet metaphysician who was made to feel guilty by scientism (not science).

>>5322225
Subjective errors are ruled out by peer review.

>>5322226
>you are all making unqualified assumptions
>my own unqualified assumptions are merely common sense
the retreat of the retard

>>5322226
>common sense
Metaphysical concept. Look at the history of metaphysics, Descartes is a good example of this.

>>5322221
That's quite the wishful assumption to think I just now, while conversing with you, finally understood that it's bullshit.

wait people are arguing we dont know things from science? like you people think the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth?

>>5322131
>Peter wouldn't like the Catholic church at all.
Why not?

>>5322230
That only makes them intersubjective, not objective.

>>5322226
>common sense
Explain to me what you mean by common sense. It sounds like a spook but I'm not sure.

>>5322153
AA hires, huh? Just try to keep them away from the important experiments.

>>5322206
Everything about this post makes me cringe.

>>>/reddit/

>>5322241
This was first a neoplatonic theory from Copernicus. Only later observations were made. Of course this interpretation makes infinitely more sense than the geocentric model. Some of us are just aware of the "fact" that all facts are parts of interpretations, some better, some worse, but still ultimately based on some metaphysical concepts. We are far from being against science, we are only against science as absolute truth. It's not as black and white as you seem to think.

>>5320989

Why bother getting out of bed when you know billions of people have done it before and all of them are as dead as you will be?

>>5322171
Basically, you need to accept the notion of an objective fact before you can engage in science. This is one of several assumptions that science makes and does not question in order to engage in it's study. Philosophy is what validates or disproves the assumptions of Science.

>>5322314
⇒This is one of several assumptions that science makes and does not question
Questioning the existence of factual observations is a futile exercise in kindergarten tier pseudo-intellectualism and not socially acceptable if you're older than 6.

⇒Philosophy is what validates or disproves the assumptions of Science.
Philosophy doesn't validate or disprove shit. It only continues to spout idiotic platitudes like "u cannot know nuthin".

>>5322178
There is no such thing as a self-evident premise. Which I will admit, is in itself a premise in need of justification. However, this justification cannot come from science, only from philosophy.

>>5321812
man who fucks with others,
is fucking with himself
- jesus, buddha etc

>>5322319
was meant as a response to >>5322207

>>5322319
Philosophy cannot justify anything. It only endlessly repeats either "I believe" or "I don't believe".

>>5322319
I dare you to show me one thing philosopy has ever "justified". Post it and I will shit sophistry all over you, the likes of which have never been seen on this board before. Mark my fucking words, kiddo.

>>5321943
Let me guess, your early childhood days was spent posting in UK vs US threads that it now made you assume that everything is a black and white, them or us dichotomy. It's like you've become the manifestation of autism and the best part is, you probably think you're just trolling.

Okay, genius.

>>5322314
>you need to accept the notion of an objective fact before you can engage in science
You don't. You can view facts as interpretations and a material for re-interpretations and still engage in science. You need neither a concept of objectivity nor of subjectivity to make statements about the world and you can still see relative progress in your interpretations by how much complexity they can capture.

>>5322206
>took it for granted

There's your problem. Science takes a lot of things for granted, that philosophy is necessary to verify or disprove. I can't speak for the rest of anon, but I don't argue that science is useless, or not worth engaging in, or anything like that. I only argue that science is dependent on philosophy, not the other way around, therefore philosophy isn't meaningless/useless/whatever.

>>5322330
Nietzschean affirmations justify the suffering of existence

>>5322327
Why need for justifications? This is a moral concept anyway, being just, having justice and all that. The point is that you can analyze premises and show where they are unstable. All premises are unstable, but in different ways and to different extents.

Science is just an improved common sense. It's a plebeian tier devoid of human freedom. The opiate of the contemporary masses. The latest weapon of marketing strategies, often with some touches of New Age bullshit accompanying it. Dumb people who apply for STEM degree end up working for these very companies, "inventing" derivative products designed to fool people with the appearance of novelties.

Of course, science indeed progresses. But in reality it doesn't progress as much as scientists and dumb people hope. Remember when old people thought they'd colonize the space by the twenty-first century?

>>5322358
*tips fedora*

>>5322332
⇒Let me guess, your early childhood days was spent posting in UK vs US threads
My early childhood days were spent in a shitty third world country where you couldn't even be sure whether you survive the next day. Check your first world privilege.

>>5322337
⇒philosophy is necessary to verify or disprove
Philosophy cannot verify or disprove anything. It can only assert an opinion. You are fucking retarded.

>>5322358
Paranoid delusions belong on >>>/x/

>>5322340
There is no suffering of existence.

>>5322364
>Philosophy cannot verify or disprove anything. It can only assert an opinion. You are fucking retarded.

“Philosophy ... is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions.”

Let me guess, you know more than Schopenhauer?

>>5321798
>mfw we live in a society that actually believes this

>>5322319
⇒There is no such thing as a self-evident premise.

There is. When I show you an apple I'm holding in my hand, then the existence of said apple is not up to debate. It is an observational fact.

>>5322378
Kids living on the Gaza strip, battery farmed animals, your 9-5

Believe what you want

>>5322379
In Schopenhauer's time the scientific method wasn't publically known yet. Science was not yet an established institution. When he uses the word "science", it does not have the same meaning as it does today.

>>5321938
used by philosophers
this conversation is making me autismal

>>5322386
It's not.

Funny you should use an apple as an example when going for the low-hanging fruit and trying to thrive on intuition. Come on cunt, you can do better than that.

>>5322379
Schopie says metaphysics are needed. However, his view that you get from representations to the will itself is too naïve.

>>5322364
holy fuck. should have guessed it's physicalist arrow man

>>5322386
you missed Russel's whole point about sense data

>>5322388
Farm animals in batteries are not an example of suffering because animals don't have consciousness. I could comment on the "kids in Gaza" thing as well, but then the thread would derail into /pol/ crap. So instead I'll just let you know that your argument is invalid.

>>5321893
>>5321884
>>5321881
A field is a math logic.

>>5322407
>Farm animals in batteries are not an example of suffering because animals don't have consciousness.

Don't state things as fact if you have no idea what you are talking about

>>5321935
Your eyes don't even exist

>>5322391
Don't change the subject,

Science is and was at it's core the same then as it is now. Tell me how his claim posits anything about philosophy that is not an axiomatic truth for science.

This is a dumb discussion and you all are retarded for doing it.

>>5322394
Get rekt by Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

>>5322402
I am neither physicalist nor a man.

>>5322400
Yes Schopes wasn't perfect

>>5322414
⇒Science is and was at it's core the same then as it is now.

Absolutely not. Please google the history of science.

>>5321980
>being this butthurt

>>5322420
Answer my question.

>>5322424
Your question is nonsensical because that quote does not describe how philosophy is actually done.

>>5322416
How was I supposed to get rekt? By listening to common sense "everything is like it appears to be" platitudes?

>>5322430
Have fun starving because you refuse to accept the factual existence of the food right in front of you. Your fedora'd attitude is truly disgusting.

>>5322428
Then you, as was made obvious from the outset, are literally too stupid for entry level philosophy.

>>5322433

>>5322437
I know more about philosophy than you. Keep your projections to yourself.

>>5322440
There are some people with double masters in Philosophy that are too stupid for it

>>5322128
Shit dude! Fucking edgy, really radical man... Wanna go listen to some linkin park while we suck each other off?

>>5322446
There are also some people like me who are too intelligent for philosophy.

>>5322451
You should be a troll instead, it's more your bag

You could try reading the Bhagavad Gita - As It Is (with commentary by Srila Prabhupada - creator of Hare Krishna movement) . Keep in mind this is basically the bible for "Hare Krishna" people. It may be a bit cult-ish I don't know.

>>5322433
You don't need to accept the "factual existence" of food to eat any more than you need to believe in "free will" to make decisions.

>>5322552
>You could try reading the Bhagavad Gita - As It Is (with commentary by Srila Prabhupada
Good lord! This is like reading 'The Watchtower' to try and get an idea of Christian theology.

>>5322566
By eating it you are establishing the factual existence of food.

>>5322150
>implying NDT is a real scientist

>>5321917

Abrahamic religions should all be understood as "Western."

>>5322574
Pretty funny, I was actually raised a JW and know basically everything about it. Personally, I just find reading the bible is the best way in Christianity.

>>5321812
What is that pic?

>>5322625
Gödels insanity and hopes

>>5322576
If I dream about eating food, am I also establishing its factual existence? If I have a "vision of divinity" am I establishing the factual existence of God?

>>5322663
Are you living in a bi-level home? Or on a flood plain? Or in a trailer?

>>5321047
is this true

>>5322625
Godel's ontological argument, it's on Wikipedia

>>5320989
Indians had already figured out Hegelianism, yet Hegel thought that it could have only been articulated in the 19th century by himself.

Hegel = wrekt

because indians are ugly and stink like curry

>>5322885
>Indians had already figured out Hegelianism
you better back that claim up with something other than some hindu bullshit about all things being one and stuff.

>>5322386
> There is. When I show you an
> apple I'm holding in my hand,
> then the existence of said apple
> is not up to debate. It is an
> observational fact

Hasn't Descartes already been through this? Our senses are not universally reliable. We can mistake things for other things, we can mishear things, etc. We can even misremember things, while having a strong conviction that our memory is correct. Given how often our senses deceive us, what evidence do we have that they are /ever/ reliable? We shouldn't take it for granted that anything our senses tell us is in any way related to the objective truth, assuming there is such a thing.

>>5323569
When every human's senses always give the same result, then why should we care whether it is right or wrong? It is how we perceive the world.

>>5321798
Bother with this

*Unzips dick*

>>5321842
That's like saying the stars invented light.

>>5321943
jesus fucking christ what is this /x/?
i've never seen anyone this oblivious to the history of philosophy on /lit/
>hurr durr positivism is a branch of science

this has to be a /b/ raid

>>5323880
What's your point?

>>5322964
Don't you know anything about Hinduism?

It's Hegelianism.

Christianity and Hinduism are the most Hegelcore religions.

>>5323907
i think it has to be a troll post?

knowledge can be derived by either A. Reason, or B. empirical evidence.
most of say, evolutionary biology is derived from reason. Of course there's empirical evidence for evolution, but you still have to take steps to accept it, so it is the product of reason, Physics is mostly mathematics (i'm speaking with exception to perhaps theoretical physics) so it is more or less directly acceptable without taking steps (or leaps, if you will),
The greater part of continental philosophy is derived from example (marxist thought for example, bourgeoisie exists, it takes x% of wage, oppresses more as time goes on, proletariat grows, therefore proletariat will rebel)
that is not the opposite of science. It practically is science, marx was wrong about the proletariat continuing to grow (it shrunk) therefore marx's synthesis was wrong.

the only thing that would be the opposite of science is interpretivism (i think), and very particularly faith based religion- quite rare (i guess ancient-esque mysticism would work)

>>5324019
(when i say empirical evidence i don't mean seeing an apple)
i mean performing experiments on multiple properties of a particular object to clarify that these properties match those of apples. Once this is done, the apple is as there as any other apple with those properties

>>5324019
Ethics and metaphysics are the only fields left to philosophy after everything else has become science or math. Ethics and metaphysics have no objective basis whatsoever and are solely based on "I prefer this subjective untestable belief because muh feelings".

its fresh unbiased look

>>5324154
But the assertion that science and math are "objective", that they show us "truth" and "reality", that there exists an "external" world governed by "laws of nature" -- all of this is metaphysics for fuck's sake. The validity of science rests entirely on metaphysical beliefs (scientists just don't want to admit this -- or, more likely, they don't actually understand it -- so they like to call their metaphysics "common sense").

Scientists, of course, are too busy "proving" and "explaining" to bother understanding what it would MEAN to prove, what it would MEAN to explain. And when challenged about this they love to appeal to their "common sense" -- common sense, which a couple of thousand years ago told us the earth was flat and the sky was a vault. The whole idea of science is "forget common sense, let's actually investigate": "common sense" has frequently been and continues to be a hated ENEMY of scientists -- except, of course, when they can use it as a cheap defense to avoid actually using their fucking brains for anything else than obsessing over their little charts and their little formulas. Then it's suddenly their best friend!

Retards.

>>5324685
⇒all of this is metaphysics for fuck's sake
Nah, it's just common sense. The existence of reality is only questioned by schizophrenics.

⇒The validity of science rests entirely on metaphysical beliefs
It doesn't require any belief to accept that observational facts are true.

I'll repeat it again: The foundations of science are self-evident. Solipsistic nonsense is a futile exercise in infantile pseudo-intellectualism and not acceptable if you're older than 6. You are not deep for spouting this "u cannot know nothing" rubbish. It only makes you look immature.

>>5324701
>Nah, it's just common sense.
lol dude, you clearly do not even understand what metaphysics is. By the way, repeating "it's common sense" is the equivalent of repeating "god made it so". It is a crutch for the mentally crippled.

>I'll repeat it again: The foundations of science are self-evident.
It is self-evident that the sky is a vault. You cannot question this because it is common sense (just look up at it, retard!) and you'll show yourself to be an infantile pseudo-intellectual.

Am I being smart now?

>>5324744
I do not know what perverted pleasure you gain out of pretending to be defective, but I can assure you that normal people do accept that the things they see are real. Please get psychiatric help.

India, Greece, etc. are proof that all great intellectual work has been done by Indo-Europeans

>>5321798
congrats anon ur now the president of this subreddit

>>5324701
>self-evident

I'm sorry, but nothing is self evident. There is no such thing as self-evident. If it can be questioned (as everything can) then it requires some proof. There are no "foundational beliefs" which are exempt from the standard of proof, not even the statement "the data my senses give me is accurate." And in fact, it is demonstrable that the data our senses gives us isn't accurate 100% of the time. Therefore, the rest of the time is thrown into question as well. There is no reason to believe that, at any particular time, our senses are conveying accurate data. For everyday life, we operate on the assumption that they do, because it's easier that way, and the data they give us is for the most part consistent. But if you're trying to get to the truth, which science is, you have to hold things to a more rigorous standard than you do in everyday life. This requires questioning any and all assumptions that we hold. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, should be assumed. Note that I did not say that "u cannot know nuthin", only that "u cannot assume nuthin"

We have this thread every week.

>>5321798
oo somebody follows neil degrasse tyson.

>>5325342
The existence of reality does not require extraordinary proof. Your fucking observation is the proof. Questioning the existence of the things right in front of you is a symptom of mental illness.

>>5326410

What if your observation is flawed?

>>5326435
peer review

>>5322163
>irregardless