[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 360x450, 175014~Peter-Cushing-Posters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4827457 No.4827457 [Reply] [Original]

So are you guys still the same mouthbreathing idiots you were three years ago, arguing about Ayn Rand, thinking analytic philosophy was god tier, and failing to understand much of anything beyond how to make prosthetic vaginas out of sponges and ziploc baggies?

>> No.4827469

look we're still working on the rand problems but we're making headway everywhere else since 2012

>> No.4827475

>>4827457
very rarely see rand here anymore, it's more science vs. philosophy (which is arguably worse than rand) and /pol/core.

>> No.4827479
File: 8 KB, 250x300, peter_cushing_portrait_001_tn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4827479

I'm glad to hear that.

>> No.4827482

>>4827475

You're right. That's worse than Rand.

>> No.4827483

>>4827479

Thank you Mr Cushing

>> No.4827492

>>4827457
>thinking analytic philosophy was god tier

/lit/'s divided here, but otherwise yes.

>> No.4827497

>>4827492

It's not god tier. It's not even well-written.

>> No.4828146

I was breathing through my nose while reading this, get rekt faggot

>> No.4828150

/lit/ still believes philosophy wasn't made obsolete by science.

>> No.4828166
File: 13 KB, 206x235, 1297826141708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4828166

>mfw people still think continental philosophy and/or other pseudo-intellectual ideologies are relevant in this day and age

Analytic philosophy has been, and always will be, the best, regardless of what you think of it. Reality does not bend to opinion.

>> No.4828189

>>4828166
Philosophy is just shit flinging over opinions. It's literally like religion, only with god replaced by pseudo-intellectualism. If you want objectivity, do science.

>> No.4828200

>>4827497
Are you retarded? Just because you're a dumbass who can't into basic logic and prefers obscurantism doesn't mean it isn't well-written.

>> No.4828206

>>4828189
>implying the scientific method isn't a philosophical methodology

>> No.4828207

>>4828200
The word "logic" doesn't mean what you think it means. Mislabeling your opinions as "logical" does not make them less invalid.

>> No.4828255

>>4828207

Oh boy here we go again

>> No.4828273

>>4828206
It isn't.

>> No.4828299

>>4828273

It is. Educate yourself. Science is a branch of epistemology.

>> No.4828319

>>4828299
Science is as much a branch of epistemology as astrophysics is a branch of astrology, i.e. not at all. Science has superseded philosophy. Objectivity has superseded subjectivity.

>> No.4828329

>>4828319
>Science has superseded philosophy. Objectivity has superseded subjectivity.
>thinking these thoughts can exist anywhere except for in the tiny branch of epistemology

You think science is bigger than it really is because it gets a lot of hype these days (mostly because of tech marketing and scaremongering). It can never not be a subset of philosophy.

>> No.4828338

>>4828329
Science does not involve any philosophy. Please go to school and learn the scientific method.

>> No.4828344

>>4828319

Philosophy (of the analytic variety) is more objective than science. Sciences merely dwells on sense data after all, and induction can be wrong. However, logical truths cannot be contradicted.

>> No.4828348

>>4828338
Data obtained from the scientific method only makes sense within a subset of knowledge, it has no meaning outside of that subset of knowledge. Please graduate from school so you can stop talking like a student.

>> No.4828350

>>4828344
The so called "analytic philosophy" does not involve any logic, only opinions. Logic is a field of math.

>> No.4828356

>>4828348
Science is objective and universal.

>> No.4828361

>>4828338
Well, you know, except for the Scientific Method. So apart from the core concept which holds it all together, there isn't a speck of philosophy to be found.

>> No.4828364

>>4828361
The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. None of the steps in the scientific method includes contemplating existence.

>> No.4828367

>>4828364
Philosophy != contemplating existence.

>> No.4828369

>>4828350

Oh for fucks sake, it's you again. Philosophy uses logic like physics uses mathematics you fucking nitwit. Why does this have to be explained!? Logic was invented/discovered by Aristotle (a philosopher).

>> No.4828372

>>4828367
Metaphysics is the only thing left to philosophy after every meaningful inquiry has been incorporated into science.

>> No.4828373

>>4828364
Philosophy isn't just metaphysics and navel gazing, you know

>> No.4828377

>>4828369
Formal logic didn't exist prior to the 19th century. It was formulated by mathematicians. Research in logic requires a math degree.

>> No.4828379

>>4828373
It is. Anything else has been taken away from philosophy by science.

>> No.4828394

>>4828379

> Philosophy is just metaphysics

> Ethics

> Epistemology (the branch of philosophy from which all truth finding disciplines are reliant upon)

> Aesthetics

Those are just the broadest subjections of philosophy. Lets explore a few of the specialized fields:

> Philosophy of Mathematics

> Philosophy of religion

> Philosophy of Science

> Philosophy of Mind

> Political theory

... I could go on but why bother?

>> No.4828404

>>4828377

Even if research in logic required a mathematics degree (I'm pretty sure that, while many philosophical logicians do, a PhD in philosophical logic would suffice), reasearch in logic =/= using logic.

To go back to the physicist comparison; they use maths without actually going into pure mathematical research.

>> No.4828408

>>4828394
⇒ethics
Philosophers are unqualified to talk about ethics. Ethics is a matter of subjective opinion and everyone is equally entitled to have an opinion.

⇒epistemology
Epistemology is not an issue anymore. We have logic and the scientific method.

⇒aesthetics
Aesthetics are being researched in mathematics and psychology.

⇒philosophy of mathematics
... is for people who are too unintelligent to understand the contents of mathematics.

⇒philosophy of religion
Religion? Seriously? It's not the 17th century anymore.

⇒philosophy of science
Science and philosophy are polar opposites. "Philosophy of science" is just a misnomer for various ridiculous attempts to deny the validity of scientific facts.

⇒philosophy of mind
The worst anti-scientific metaphysical shit flinging contest of all times.

⇒political theory
Political SCIENCE

>> No.4828412

how 2 make prosthetic vagina pls

>> No.4828439

>>4828377
>Research in logic requires a math degree.
this isn't the case at all though I'm sure you know that.

>> No.4828451

>>4828439
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there's much deeper things in logic than your shallow intro to propositional calculus.

>> No.4828488

>>4828408
>⇒ethics
>Philosophers are unqualified to talk about ethics. Ethics is a matter of subjective opinion and everyone is equally entitled to have an opinion.
Then who is qualified? Definitely not scientists. You can't deny that philosophical inquiry into ethics has had major effects on the real world.
>⇒epistemology
>Epistemology is not an issue anymore. We have logic and the scientific method.
Why do you trust logic (a philosophical concept)? Why do you trust the scientific method? These are questions that cannot be answered without epistemology.
>⇒aesthetics
>Aesthetics are being researched in mathematics and psychology.
Maybe, but at the moment not much has been achieved in that field of research, although that all comes down to opinion as well.
>⇒philosophy of mathematics
>... is for people who are too unintelligent to understand the contents of mathematics.
ok then
>⇒philosophy of religion
>Religion? Seriously? It's not the 17th century anymore.
The vast majority of the world is religious.
>⇒philosophy of science
>Science and philosophy are polar opposites. "Philosophy of science" is just a misnomer for various ridiculous attempts to deny the validity of scientific facts.
You don't know what you are talking about.
>⇒philosophy of mind
>The worst anti-scientific metaphysical shit flinging contest of all times.
Maybe, but the belief that the mind is simply the brain is not an a priori assumption
>⇒political theory
>Political SCIENCE
implying Marx et al. didn't make massive impacts on the world

>> No.4828502

>>4828408
>Philosophers are unqualified to talk about ethics

Who is qualified to talk about who is qualified to talk about ethics?

>> No.4828505

>>4828408

> PHilosophers are unqualifiied to talk about ethics, coz it's subjective apparently

Saying ethics is objective...is a philosophical point of contention.

> Logic scientific method means epistemology isn't important.

You need epistemology for both of those feilds to be meaningful. By maintaining the importance of science but not epistemology you're cutting the branch that you're sitting from on the tree.

> Physcology is researching aesthetics.

It is researching why we like what we do, not what objectively makes something beautiful or not. You cannot reduce literary theory to psycology.

> phil of mathematics is being researched by ppl who don't understand mathematics.

Lol someone should have told that to Russel etc, they're "too dumb", despite being mathematicians themselves. Even if this were true, it doesn't take away from the subject itself. There are still functionalist issues of philosophical importance.

> hurr im too smartz 4 religion durr

Yeah, great sophistication in your rebuttel of a diety. You can only meaningfully make a claim that religion is incorrect based on research in philosophy of religion. But you just disregard then issue based on emotional reasons. You are quite the scientist it seems.

> Philosophy of science just just saying science is wrong.

No it isn't.

> Philosophy and science are polar opposites.

No they're not. Maybe if you understood logic yourself you'd understand the entailment of such a claim, and thus not make it.

> phil of mind is antiscientific

No it isn't. Read Dennett or Searle.

> hurr Political SCIENCE

Which is applied political theory. Read Plato's Republic.

>> No.4828512

>>4828488
⇒Then who is qualified?
nobody

⇒Definitely not scientists.
Sam Harris is approaching morality from a scientific point of view.

⇒You can't deny that philosophical inquiry into ethics has had major effects on the real world.
This never happened. No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy.

⇒Why do you trust logic (a philosophical concept)?
Logic is a mathematical concept.

⇒Why do you trust the scientific method?
Accepting facts does not require faith.

⇒The vast majority of the world is religious.
The vast majority of the world has an IQ in the retard range.

⇒You don't know what you are talking about.
I know very well what I'm talking about.

⇒Marx et al. didn't make massive impacts on the world
Everyone can have political opinions. Is everyone who has an opinion a philosopher? Is this your definitoin of philosophy? Pathetic grasping at straws.

>> No.4828516

>>4828451
you seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are still non-trivial problems in logic that don't involve digging into geometric abstractions.

>> No.4828535

I am angry at myself for even clicking on this thread and making my blood pressure rise again, knowing it's going to go exactly like every time before. Interdisciplinary shit-flinging and bait.

>> No.4828550

>>4828535

What side of the debate do you agree with?

>> No.4828557

>>4828505
⇒Saying ethics is objective...is a philosophical point of contention.
No, it's a scientific observation. Read Sam Harris.

⇒You need epistemology for both of those feilds to be meaningful
No, I don't.

⇒It is researching why we like what we do, not what objectively makes something beautiful or not
That's why I also mentioned math.

⇒You can only meaningfully make a claim that religion is incorrect based on research in philosophy of religion
Rejecting religion only requires common sense.

⇒Maybe if you understood logic yourself you'd understand the entailment of such a claim
I understand logic better than you and my claim is still true.

⇒Read Dennett or Searle.
I did. Dennett is literally the dumbest person in the field. He cannot form even a single argument. His infantile denial and his insistence in a demonstrably wrong position is cringeworthy. I burst out laughing when I had to read how he proposes to define qualia as "intrinsic properties" and later on he says the vagueness of the word "intrinsic" shows how inconsistent the concept is. If he's not trolling, he must be mentally handicapped.

⇒Which is applied political theory. Read Plato's Republic.
Plato's republic has never been relevant. Its ideas have never been implemented and have only been ridiculed throughout history.

>> No.4828561

>>4828535
>Interdisciplinary shit-flinging and bait.
4chan in a nutshell

>> No.4828564

>>4828516
The non-trivial problems in logic are mathematical.

>> No.4828599

>>4828557
>Read Sam Harris.
Sam Harris books aren't scientific documents.

>> No.4828603

>>4828550
To be honest – the side arguing for the importance of philosophy. I'm aware that it might just be affirmation bias (since I'm very into it, as well as into most scientific fields), but it seems like the pro-science guy is ignoring/doing a really bad job refuting the point on epistemology. I also feel like his arguments are simply not strong enough to support such radical claims.

>> No.4828605

>>4828512
>Sam Harris is approaching morality from a scientific point of view.
Yes and he hasn't said anything beyond utilitarianism.
>This never happened. No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy.
No absolute consensuses but there are many popular theories and more importantly things that have had effects on the real world, which is what it all comes down to considering all ethics is just OPINIONS.
>Logic is a mathematical concept.
What is math?
>The vast majority of the world has an IQ in the retard range.
Just because you don't agree with the vast majority of humanity doesn't mean you can completely dismiss the practical implications of their beliefs entirely.
>Accepting facts does not require faith.
You do know that scientists themselves never claim to arrive at these "facts" that you speak of, right?
>I know very well what I'm talking about.
You have you ever herd of Kuhn and Popper I assume.
>Everyone can have political opinions. Is everyone who has an opinion a philosopher? Is this your definitoin of philosophy? Pathetic grasping at straws.
Opinions that massively alter the course of history.

>> No.4828606

>>4828557
stop doing this everyday jesus fuck

>> No.4828607

>>4828535
>making my blood pressure rise again

It's only 4chan, mate.

>> No.4828614

>>4828599
Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience.

>>4828603
The scientific method works. Yes, the problem of induction exists and it is countered by being open to chaning our theories upon new observations. What more is to be said about epistemology? Nothing.

>> No.4828617

>>4828557
You are worse than tripfags. You use your stupid fucking arrows to make an identity for yourself but don't commit to a trip because you are afraid of being filtered. Absolutely pathetic.

>> No.4828621

>>4828614
>Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience.

I don't know what you mean by this. It doesn't change what I said about his books.

>> No.4828636

>>4828617
He reminds me of that guy who wanted to redo the alphabet. Anyone remember that nigga? He would purposely spell 'philosophy' as 'filosofy' or some shit.

>> No.4828637

>>4828605
⇒Yes and he hasn't said anything beyond utilitarianism.
You must have missed all the neuroscience he presents.

⇒but there are many popular theories and more importantly things that have had effects on the real world
Name one.

⇒What is math?
something you don't understand

⇒Just because you don't agree with the vast majority of humanity doesn't mean you can completely dismiss the practical implications of their beliefs entirely.
Come on. The belief that a bearded man in the sky is watching us is just ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.

⇒You do know that scientists themselves never claim to arrive at these "facts" that you speak of, right?
Every observation is a fact.

⇒You have you ever herd of Kuhn and Popper I assume.
I did and they are irrelevant to how science is conducted.

⇒Opinions that massively alter the course of history.
This doesn't answer my questions.

>> No.4828642

>>4828636
bernard shaw?

>> No.4828650

>>4828637
>You have you ever herd of Kuhn and Popper I assume.
>I did and they are irrelevant to how science is conducted.

Welp, that explains everything.

>> No.4828651

>>4828557

> lulz read Sam Harris cuz he shows how philosophy is not as good as science.

Sam Harris is just applying ideas in Neuroscience to Utilitarianism, right? He is not a respected scientist or philosopher anyway.

> I don't need the theory of knowledge to make claims about knowledge.

Yes you do. Read the definition of epistemology. Without an epistemologucal assumption, you cannot say that just because science has found out a fact about sense data, that that fact is the correct interpretation of the sense data.

> lulz religion can be proved wrong with common sense! Whast do you mean the greatest minds on the planet have debated this issue? I haz more smartz than them all.

Go on then, prove religion demonstrably false.

> science is the opposrsite to philosophy

Demonstrate this. Let the assumption for you argument be: "Philosophy and science are only absolute opposites if and only if everything that science and religion does are diametrically opposed in every way, that there is no correlation between their aims and methodology whatsoever, and that these are diametrically opposed, and that all activity of both fields are diametrically opposed to each other for them to be considered part of the set of philosophy and science.

Heads up: you'll be unable to, because this is false.

> Dennett is an idiot

I don't say I completely disagree; I named dropped him because he's one of the new atheists you seem to love. But, highlighting how a term is vague is a reasonable way to say how the concept of what it represents is inconsistent, because you can apply different criteria to it.

> Plato not used.

His ideas have never been used in a society exactly, but my point was how philosophy has informed political ideas. I could have named many Philosophers, say, Hobbes, Bentham or Marx.

>> No.4828654

>>4828637
GET A TRIP

do you consider it your job to defend science from the evil clutches of philosophy?