the death of philosophy

[Anonymous No.5166870]

What went wrong, philosophers?

Back in Descartes' time philosopy used to be a respected profession and worked well together with science and mathematics. What happened over the course of the last two centuries? Why did philosophy become an anti-science and anti-math circlejerk obsessed with denying basic facts and with promoting skepticism where it is most inappropriate, e.g. "hurr durr reality doesn't real" or "u cannot know nuthin"? Nowadays philosophy is no better than creationism. It opposes progress and knowledge. Is it because math took away logic from philosophy? Is it because of the rise of the so called "analytic philosophers", a new cult of sophists who are willing to go full retard when they are being called out on their fallacies?

Has anyone rationally analyzed the course of events? Is there a book on the topic? I'm curious.

[Anonymous No.5166871]

Hegel.

[Anonymous No.5166883]

>>5166870

you really can't know nuthin, since all you "know" you derive from sense. you can only assume that you know sumthin; science doesn't know nuthin, it only "knows sumthin givn sumthin els".

scientism fags gtfo

[Anonymous No.5166978]

What went wrong, /lit/?

Back in my time trolling used to be a respected practice and worked well together with shitposting and legitimate discussion. What happened over the course of the last two years? Why did trolling become a low-effort and low-quality circlejerk obsessed with posting banal content?

[Anonymous No.5167149]

Which modern philosophers bugged you so much to inspire this, OP?

[Anonymous No.5167159]

I know one thing: that I know nothing.

[Alfonso No.5167378]

>>5166870
You may be right, or maybe you are wrong. Who knows?

[Anonymous No.5167380]

>>5166870
>I have a theory
>Let's falsify it
The idea of the importance of falsification comes from philosophy. Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.5167388]

>Implying philosophers don't falsify the entire idea of a theory
>implying philosophers even bother with practicality in the first place
topkek

[Anonymous No.5167422]

>>5166870

fixd

[Anonymous No.5167425]

>>5166870
Philosophy comes from the world philo which sounds like Dr Phil, one of the most annoying and most condescending people on the planet. Furtermore, philo sounds kinda like the ending of the word "pedophile". In summary, philosophers are annoying and condesceding kiddie fiddlers who don't understand science. You can't argue with that.

Tell me what philosophers mean when they say "you cant know nothing".

[Anonymous No.5167429]

postmodernism happened

[Anonymous No.5167431]

>>5166871
Fuck yeah

[Anonymous No.5167472]

>>5166870
Materialism and rejection of the unmaterial. Thanks to Marx and his misreading of based Hegel. Also just because something doesn't put science in it's apex doesn't mean it's anti-science. Your average secualrshit STEMfag would also think Descartes is anti-science.

[Anonymous No.5167860]

>>5166870
It's not anti-math nor anti-science.

But let's go slowly.

1) Philosophy was never seen as respectful. There was always someone resenting it. The theologian, the working man, the ruler and then the priest. When Thales entered the well to gaze better at the stars he was mocked by the servant girl. The court of alexander the great made it so that they would catch aristotle being rode like a horsey by a dancer. Descartes managed to hold a decent reputation by being politically careful. Spinoza did not have so much luck.

2) Generally philosophy is not ant-science nor anti-math. There have been in the last 20 years a few off-shoots that have been but the problem is that if you are not drinking the whole positivism/enlightenment cool-aid then you are getting attacked as anti-science. Most philosophers, especially the good ones, in the last century has pointed out that our hopes in progress were exaggerated and that you cannot think that the only knowledge is scientific knowledge.

3) Even post-modernism actually was born out of an attempt to make the humanities more scientific mostly under the pressure of fund being cut from the universities. It was a half-assed attempt and that is why it failed miserably, and once it failed miserably it turned on science in backlash hoping to gain relevancy and gain funds in that way. Here I'm speaking mostly of the reception of the post-60s french philosophy in the us.

3)Analytic philosophy on the other side suffers from an absurd dose of provincialism and lack of critical thinking. An habit that was born during the cold war, when they didn't want to get involved into politics, they take as a given truth, outside of science, what is the common sense among the population. Unfortunately most of them are people that grew up in the american academic system and are people who never lived a single year of their life outside a college campus since the age of 17.

[Anonymous No.5167875]

BECAUSE PHILOSOPHY AND POETRY ARE SEEN IN A SOMEWHAT 'SPIRITUAL' SENSE

THE SCIENTIST HAS REPLACED THE PHILOSOPHER AND THE POET AS THE ONE TO TRUST, EVEN IF YOU DON'T EXACTLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE WORLD HAS AN INCREASING HUNGER FOR INSTANT GRATIFICATION--READING A DENSE PHILOSOPHICAL WORK OR READING MYSTICAL POETRY DOES NOT PROVIDE THIS.

THE WORLD IS MORE AFTER FACTS, STATISTICS AND INFOGRAPHS.

[Anonymous No.5167879]

>>5167860
It's spelled "Kool-Aid" you dumbfuck, clearly you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.5167889]

>>5167879
I hope this post is just for our amusement

[Anonymous No.5168071]

>>5166870
>Why did philosophy become an anti-science and anti-math circlejerk
Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics are thriving.
>math took logic away from philosophy
A ton of the most influential philosophers of the last century have also done serious work in logic. Do you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about?
So-called analytic philosophy has probably been more greatly influenced by mathematics than any other coherent philosophical movement.

[Anonymous No.5168206]

>>5166870

[Anonymous No.5168207]

truth is OP philosophy as a subject was never intended for the masses
philosophy still occurs but mostly by the philosopher kings working in Think Tanks that are responsible for setting the agenda for the world.
science, on the other hand, is basically the modern version of magic; it's spectacle for the masses.

[Anonymous No.5168218]

>>5168207
the philosophy that occurs in Universities and that is available to the public is just propaganda that has been put out by the real philosophers that work in Think Tanks
all the famous philosophers in academia are just laughable shills

[Anonymous No.5168229]

It's very simply. Ideologues realized that philosophy is perfect to make bullshit ideas sound true, so after Hume, there has been a huge influx of professional bullshitters, starting with Rousseau. Analytical philosophy tried to save philosophy from these bullshitters, but now religious zealots have started to attach themselves to philosophy and now it's beyond saving. The only question is whether left wingers, right wingers or religious fanatics will finally kill it off

[Anonymous No.5168247]

>>5168207
>it's spectacle for the masses
A spectacle that cures diseases and increases lifespans.
Jesus fucking christ...

[Anonymous No.5168328]

>>5168071
>Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics are thriving.

This.

/lit/ dabbles in psuedo-philosophy that appeals to English majors. All truth reduces to language which is gabbledy gookie like that found Ulysses, the works of schizophrenics, and other shitty works /lit/ pretends to like to make sure others in their field know they can read 'hard' works. Which is code for being incapable of stringing words together, of course.

[Anonymous No.5168865]

>>5168071
⇒A ton of the most influential philosophers of the last century have also done serious work in logic

Every contemporary logician has a degree in mathematics. Without profound math background they'd have no chance to understand logic. This is how it's been for more than 100 years.

[Anonymous No.5168975]

>>5168865
Implying profound math background cannot be gained without a degree in math

[Anonymous No.5169003]

>Why did philosophy become an anti-science and anti-math circlejerk
This is not true.

Why should people in any field of study care about the opinions of people who don't understand their field?

[Anonymous No.5169368]

>>5168975
That never happens, so it's completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5169843]

Fucking Feyerabend.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5169867]

>>5166870
Nothing went wrong. Philosophy is still massively studied. The difference from Descartes to now is, there's a huge amount of philosophy that already exists and so a huge portion of academic philosophy is responses and constructions on what exists.

What sort of retarded person thinks it's dead?

[Anonymous No.5171525]

>>5169867
For more than 200 years there has been no new idea in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5171544]

>>5166870
>Why did philosophy become an anti-science and anti-math circlejerk obsessed with denying basic facts and with promoting skepticism where it is most inappropriate, e.g. "hurr durr reality doesn't real" or "u cannot know nuthin"?

But that's not even remotely true. Are you seriously using a meme comic you found on 4chan as the foundation for your opinions on philosophy?

[Anonymous No.5171549]

>>5171525
I don't think you realize it but you're making yourself look extremely stupid

[Anonymous No.5171563]

>>5171549
>lolol ur stoopid xD

Is this what modern philosophers consider a rational argument? Please keep your preschool puerilities to yourself, you embarrassing sack of shit. Thanks for confirming how right OP's statement is.

[Anonymous No.5171574]

>>5171549
D'awwww, poor baby. Do you need a pacifier?

[Anonymous No.5171591]

>>5166870


it all started going wrong with the nominalist theologians.

[Anonymous No.5171602]

>>5171563
Wow this is a very rational argument, thanks for showing me how it's done, you really proved it.

On the other hand, I don't really need to present a rational argument when the claim is this ridiculous and easily contradicted. You honestly think there's been not ONE single new idea in philosophy for over 200 years? OP is complaining about what he perceives to be new ideas in the field of philosophy right there in the thread topic (which you just said was completely right). So there, you have saved me the trouble and already proved to yourself that you think there's been new ideas in philosophy in the last two centuries.

[Anonymous No.5171605]

>>5167422

STEMtards blown out.

[Anonymous No.5171609]

Philosophy begets philosophies.

[Anonymous No.5171622]

>>5171602
OP here. Neither shit flinging nor an anti-science mentality is a "new" idea. Both were present in ancient times. The only difference back then was that philosophy also had some rational discourse as well. Nowadays this rational discourse has been taken over by science and math, leaving philosophy with only the shit flinging and the denial of reality. Your posts are great examples underlining my point. Thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.5171660]

Scientist: I discovered and proved new physical law which not only expands our knowledge of reality around us but can also be really beneficial for mankind and future technologies. I think I deserve to be treated as an intellectual and a valuable memeber of society

Philosopher: I wrote 10000 long treatise on the nature of stuff and things that will be a bane of existence for many future McDonalds employees who want to waste their time getting worthless majors. I think I deserve the same kind of praise

[Anonymous No.5171661]

"Why didn't philosophers stop when they brought methodology to empiricism?"

Because technology alone cannot save humanity. If it could, it would have done it by now.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5171663]

>>5171525
This is simply untrue

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5171670]

>>5171622
Okay science isn't a rational pursuit. It's a codified system of induction. It's closer to a finely-tuned empiricism than anything, with rational understanding overlying analysis of it.

[Anonymous No.5171673]

>>5171661
Actually that was an astronomer.

[Anonymous No.5171679]

>>5171622
Not that guy you responded to, but as was stated earlier, a lot of modern philosophy is response and criticism. Pretty well every classical philosophical text out there now has a ton of interpretations and critiques that didn't exist 200 years ago. Why was the shift made? Probably because people realized that a lot of what was being said had already been said in a less refined manner. So, instead of starting a "new" branch of philosophy, most individuals simply expand on existing philosophical theories. Much like many mathematicians and scientists expand on existing work in their field.

I feel that it's especially difficult to be a "trail-blazer" in contemporary philosophy because yes, there is a fairly sizable portion of academics who simply live to fling shit at each other and smear the reputation of others (these people exist in every field, though I'll grant that the nature of the humanities makes them more prone to willy-nilly interpersonal drama than the sciences). Every time something "new" comes out, it is instantly and relentlessly critiqued and criticized, and the critiques and criticisms that ring the loudest are usually the most simple, shallow, and pedestrian. "It's shit because it's just a regurgitation of ______." "______ already said something exactly like this." Instead of looking for the nuances in these new philosophical papers, people just size up the influences of the piece of writing and say that it's derivative. Why? Probably because the "information age" has made people ridiculously jaded about everything. It's easier (and trendier) to be negative and dismissive than it is to take the time out to thoroughly investigate something and draw your own conclusions. Once that dismissive opinion takes hold, people don't want to be stuck on the outside, so they regurgitate the trendy opinion so that they'll be accepted.

[Anonymous No.5171699]

Because philosophers have literally nothing better to do and are paid for the explicit purpose of defying the sciences. Its hard to justify a paycheck if you admit "well, I'm not actually useful in any capacity besides just being a figurehead for a cultural shift".

[Anonymous No.5171702]

>>5171660
Scientist: I invent things that make it easier for people to consume mindless crap and help governments commit genocide; for this I demand to be treated as the most important member of society and have everybody love me

Philosopher: I've developed a unique way to live life that will make both individuals and society happier and more knowledgeable; for this I ask for nothing because I am humble and only want for others to live their lives as best they can.

[Anonymous No.5171706]

What went wrong is that literacy and a university education were opened up to the masses.

In olden times the only literate people were rich and were actually intelligent.

Now, the modern equivalent of someone who would have been a peasant rolling in shit with no teeth and fucking his sister is allowed to read and write and become "educated", and these people are extremely pretentious and arrogant. Having no real intellect or salable skill, yet in need of a wage, they say to themselves "I will become an academic and contribute to the philosophical canon!" and another parasitic faggot is born who will contribute nothing to the world, and who by reproducing only further erodes the gene pool.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5171710]

>>5171679
This is a good reply, but I'm nearly certain that these threads are posted to rustle and not to incite serious debate

[Anonymous No.5171727]

>>5171702
Propagandist: That side is pure evil.

Citizen: I must choose to go to war.

[Anonymous No.5171728]

>>5171706

[Anonymous No.5171735]

>>5171706
>erodes the gene pool
2/10

[Anonymous No.5171738]

>>5171706
haahhahahaha

[Anonymous No.5171739]

>>5171706
written by the ancestor of a toothless-sisterfucking peasant.

[Anonymous No.5171742]

>>5171706
There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid person with great power.

[Anonymous No.5171750]

>>5171710
>tfw I'm an English/Philosophy major who doesn't plan on a career in academia

Honestly, academia just seems like mental masturbation to me. Too many professors care too much about their research and too little about actually teaching their subject -- unless they get a chance to plug their own work into their courses. It's understandable, but it just seems... wrong. Universities push research because it gives the school a better rep, but the teaching quality suffers because of it. Academia is just a cash cow now, especially in the US where people seem to REALLY care about what school they're going to and are willing to go into life-long debt to pay for their education. The trend is creeping into Canada, but I'm thankful as fuck that I'm not paying 20k a year in tuition. I won't even be that deep in debt after my English/Philosophy degree and my HR college course is finished.

>English/Philosophy major who is going into HR
>Not the scum of the Earth

Least I didn't study psychology~

[Anonymous No.5172048]

>>5168071
This. I don't know about the US, bu in the UK there are lots of degree courses that offer things like 'physics with philosophy'. This isn't even the shitty unis, oxford offer the above course.

[Anonymous No.5172377]

>>5168328
You are talking as if math itself is not just language.

[Anonymous No.5172397]

>>5171706
Man those people actually go to business school and communication not philosophy. If yours was the case the humanities numbers would go through the roof, instead it's only a tiny percentage that decides to go in it.

Remember it was always the peasants who were obsessed with usefulness and contributing to the community.

[Anonymous No.5172401]

People have always wanted philosophy to die in their heart of hearts, because people don't like to think, this is one reason.

Another is that every child of philosophy (everything deriving from thought toward wisdoms) is and was eagerly attempting to form a field of it's own, and once they had, they then turn on philosophy and call it an outdated tool, and useless which is comfy because reason 1

Then you have a trend toward telling people ever so much about the limits of philosophy (falsely or truthfully) and this only cements the idea that philosophy is useless, which is comfy because reason 1. this happened because there are a lot of people who practiced/are practicing philosophy, and have no business really doing it. Have you ever wondered why some 'philosophers' seem so eager to give birth to an ideology? I think Schopenhauer was very borderline in this respect.

Nowadys we have a self-propagating wheel of the first three problems. People come up with ideas, usually half baked, which discredits philosophy, which then leads others to think that you can't know nuffin, because knowledge must be absolute (rofl, thanks empiricism), which then leads to philosophers to try and not only theorise about everything altogether, but build some kind of structural harmony in a universe literally born out of chaos

and that is why philosophy today makes your girlfriend roll her eyes and quote stephen hawking

[Anonymous No.5172505]

>>5172401
>and that is why philosophy today makes your girlfriend roll her eyes and quote stephen hawking

Oh no she doesn't. Imma cut that bitch.

[Anonymous No.5172597]

>>5167860
>an habit >an homage >an history
The people who do this disgust me, "an" is used before a vowel sound, "a" before a consonant. The only exceptions are things such as "an hour" where the consonant is silent.
Anything else is unnecessary elitist posh-sounding bullshit shitting on the English language as a whole.

[Anonymous No.5172626]

>>5172597
>merika

[Anonymous No.5172714]

>>5172597
I'm actually not a native speaker and wrote an habit as a mistake. Also why I misspelled Koop-aid

[Anonymous No.5172764]

>>5166870
Seems like you're dealing with high school stoners who just discovered philosophy. But in actuality, they still have a point.
Until science decodes consciousness to the degree when thoughts can be derived and "Read" from the physical properties of the brain, or we figure out what happened before the big bang, or we somehow account for the causal inconsistencies in our current understanding, sciences will have plenty of room for many a reasonable doubt and far fetched theory.

[Anonymous No.5172782]

>>5166870

Read Althusser, discover that you're already interpellated anyway, stop worrying and enjoy life.

[Anonymous No.5173064]

>>5172782
>continentals
>doing philosophy

[Anonymous No.5173104]

>>5173064
These are not continentals, these are Americans reading continentals.

[Anonymous No.5174040]

>>5166870
Let's check out your question.
> in Descartes' time philosopy used to be a respected profession and worked well together with science and mathematics

No, in Descartes time science and math were philosophy. Considering you can get a Phd (philosophy doctor) in physics, sciences are still a part of philosophy.
> what happened over the course of the last two centuries?
Science distinguish itself of philosophy, but with the criteria and concepts of 19th century philosophy : progress, utility, mastering nature, etc. Saying that the most concrete thing is the "fact" is a BIG metaphysical statement. And what is a "fact"? It's a concept that scientist use all the time but cant define.

Heidegger said : sciences can't think. Why? Because its not their job. A scientist cannot say that that the "fact" is the most real reality, this is the philosopher's job. A scientist take the concept and knowledge philosophy have produced and use it.
Why philosophy is badly seen today? Because it is not useful. Sciences created planes, discovered universe, cars, etc. that we use in our daily life. Philosophy havent done anything.
The problem is not that philosophy is useless. The modernity biggest problem is that utility have become the absolute criteria for everything. Art, philosophy, literature, religion are really suffering from this. Might be one of the biggest reason why modern man cannot grasp anymore any "meaning of life", any reason to live (he keep telling himself that he is useful to society).

[Anonymous No.5174050]

>>5166871

This is the truth.

[Anonymous No.5174053]

>>5174040
⇒And what is a "fact"? It's a concept that scientist use all the time but cant define.

Never go full retard.

[Anonymous No.5174065]

>>5174053
It's not scientist job to define "fact", its philosophy. In fact (!), a definition is not empiric, and can't be tested.

[Anonymous No.5174076]

>>5174065

The distinction between science and philosophy is a root of the thought that philosophy is dead. Science is an organ in the body of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5174091]

>>5174076
That doesnt mean anything tbh.
Philosophy explore some field that can't be explored by science, some quick examples : distinction analytic/synthetic, aprior/aposteriori, Form/matter, the question of Being, essence, freedom, ethics, etc.

ALL sciences that try to answer to those question : god exist? Freedom exist? Are not respecting their area of knowledge, therefore, they are not sciences.

[Anonymous No.5174110]

>>5172597
But anon, homage does start with a vowel sound.

[Anonymous No.5174112]

>>5174040
⇒Considering you can get a Phd (philosophy doctor) in physics, sciences are still a part of philosophy
Yeah, just like seminars always become sexual orgies because the word "seminar" is derived from Latin "semen". Etymological fallacies are retarded.

⇒progress, utility, mastering nature
None of these are relevant to science. Science describes, explains and improves its explanations. What people do with science is not a problem of science itself. Science told us how to build nuclear weapons. Philosophy told us how to use them (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Science told us that certain gases are deadly. Philosophy told us how to use them (holocaust). Science is neutral. Philosophy is the source of much evil.

⇒Saying that the most concrete thing is the "fact" is a BIG metaphysical statement.
It's the most obvious truth to any non-retard. Literally the only thing almost every human being can agree upon.

⇒Heidegger said : sciences can't think.
I'd love to see Heidegger giving a lecture on quantum physics. Oh wait ...

⇒A scientist take the concept and knowledge philosophy have produced and use it.
Philosophy did never produce any knowledge. On the contrary it denies knowledge ("u cannot know nuthin"). Science relies solely on factual observations and rational thought.

[Anonymous No.5174123]

>>5166870
Well, most of us who are sick of the "wrong about everything" notion just point out that it is logically impossible to be wrong about everything, as it would imply a paradox when referring to being wrong about being wrong.

[Anonymous No.5174126]

>>5174065
The picture I posted shows a scientist defining the word "fact". Definitions do not need to be testable. The concept of testability applies only to scientific theories / hypotheses. Please learn what the scientific method is.

[Anonymous No.5174132]

>>5172714
>europoors get taught english the day they go to school
>make a simple mistake
>im not a native speaker
nah bro.

[Anonymous No.5174150]

Oh look, it's this thread again.

>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.5174174]

>>5174112
More like people wanted to kill a lot of people (philosophy) and science told them how (nuclear weapons,gases).

[Anonymous No.5174180]

>>5166870

>picture related
Descartes was exactly on the Philosophy side of that picture

[Anonymous No.5174183]

>>5174174
But even then. Is wanting to kill people actually part of philosophy? that is, is the will to kill, in and of itself philosophy?

[Anonymous No.5174203]

>>5174183
Yes, anti-natalism

[Anonymous No.5174226]

>>5174203
I don't think everyone who has a will to kill is anti-natalist. Your definition of anti-natalism is wrong

[Anonymous No.5174230]

>>5174180

>revolutionized geometry with his coordinate system, allowing figures to be expressed algebraically.
>developed his own theory of the elliptical motion of the planets, independently of Galileo
>extensive and very interesting work in human anatomy, including but not limited to the optics of the human eye
>etc, etc.
>contributed more to human understanding in
his all-too-brief life than you can over hope to

yeah, descartes was just a little philosphy bitchboy, amirite?

[Anonymous No.5174256]

>>5174112
what was your undergrad degree in?

[Anonymous No.5174273]

>>5174230

>believed there were demons controlling us as brains-in-jars

King of reason, logic and evidence, amirite?

[Anonymous No.5174278]

>>5174256
How is it relevant to the facts I posted?

[Anonymous No.5174279]

>>5172597
I've heard people pronounce history without a vowel before.

[Anonymous No.5174283]

>>5174273
>erxpecting a sixteenth century thinker to align with twnety-first century science
>not understanding the principle of thought experiment
>getting fooled by simple terminologic choices
>failing to adress the point of the post you're quoting

King of /litposting, amirite ?

[Anonymous No.5174295]

>>5174273

>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

Adopting temporarily a seemingly absurd proposition for the purposes of seeing where that proposition leads you does not mean you actually *believe* that proposition.

[Anonymous No.5174299]

>>5174278
I'm just curious. I know you're doing a PHD in something logic related and for some reason I think its semantics. I'm studying Maths at undergrad level but recently I've become quite interested in semantics hence my interest.

[Anonymous No.5174641]

>>5174112
Okay, there is a lot of bad faith in there, let's talk slowly (i'm not english, i'll take my time with ya).

1. Phd.
It is not a question of etymology. Philosophy is the study of Being, what is. Sciences study what is, therefore it is a part of philosophy. My argument is : it is even recognize officially. When you receive a Phd, you are a philosophy doctor. Your counter-argument is actually very bad, because Phd is not a plural meaning word, or a word that its meaning have chanced. PhD=philosophy doctor.

2. Progress.
You are right on that point, how people use science is not science itself. BUT, sciences are interested in the "mechanical" (sorry 'bout my Descartes language) procedures of phenomenon. Exemple : i ask you, what is fire. Science answers HOW fire exist, its mechanical procedure. Anyone who studied Aristotle knows that this is one of the 4 causes, its efficient cause (idk if this is the english name tho). Sciences are not interested in the 3 other cause of something, they only care about the HOW, of something.

3. Fact
Oh yeah, so fact is an obvious truth. Explain me why in ancient greece, middle age, and early modernity fact have NEVER BEEN a criteria. Never before there was something like a fact, and it's still a VERY SKETCHY concept. Anon answered : a confirmed observation. "My carpet is black" is a fact? Yes? No? a scientific one? "We are historical being" is a fact? How can we observe it? Plus, fact are always interpreted, there is nothing as such as an absolute-truth-evidence that give itself to you. I think the concept of fact, essential to science, is made out by a lack of seriousness, not taking the time to analyse our interpretation working even in our dear blessed "facts".

4. Heidegger
Heidegger was formed as a neo-kantian (philosophy of sciences). His university thesis was on mathematics. Idk if he knew about quantum physics, prob not, but he knew sciences pretty well (that is why his critics of sciences are very strong).

5. Knowledge.
Theory, matter, science, idea, truth, knowledge, fact, observation, rational, thinking, etc. etc. etc. are all CONCEPTS made BY PHILOSOPHERS. They are historical and you can easily find their first time apparition in philosophy (and in language). Philosophy have introduced most of the words we used in sciences. Sciences is itself based on a certain kind of philosophy. Without empiricist, rationalist, kantism, analytic philo, etc. what would be science? Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Humes, Kant, Viennes circle, etc. produces the most important concepts of science. a) Historicaly and conceptually, science is a certain PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION (i could give you some books that explain how science is related to occidental philosophy and christianism). b) sciences is itself in the continuity of a certain philosophical and metaphysical mouvement, and it presuppose their conception of the world.

[Anonymous No.5174655]

>what went wrong
another anon described it best

[Anonymous No.5174686]

>>5174299
⇒something logic related
What makes you think so? In my opinion logic is pretty boring. Last time I saw formal logic was in undergrad when I did a TA job. It was easy for me but never really interested me. I'll leave pure logic research to people with enough autism to give a fuck.

⇒I think its semantics
This is bait, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.5174688]

How to improve your /lit/ browsing experience considerably:

1. Download 4chan X
2. Open up 4chan X Settings
3. Click the Filter Heading
4. In the drop down menu, go to "Comment"
5. Add /⇒/i at the bottom
6. Now you can say the word "philosophy" without some random dumb cunt annoying everyone and trolling the thread to oblivion.

[Anonymous No.5174698]

>>5174686
you must be the biggest troll that ever roamed /lit/. claiming to not give a fuck about human emotions that serve no 'evolutionary'purpose (again, you don't know what this means), yet spending so much time on trying to disprove every single post and get people to agree with you, or just make them angry. dat narcissistic insecurity.

[Anonymous No.5174706]

>>5174126
You are saying exactly what i am saying. When a scientist use the word "fact" he used a historical and philosophical. When i said "cant define" i wanted to say : he cannot provide a rational, sufficient definition of fact (he only take the definition available, aka, the one made and analysed by philosophers) he cannot argue about the definition, cannot create a new concept that would replace the fact if this concept have any lacking. A scientist cannot think, he only have to use the words and concept available to him.
A definition being not testable, because is do not applies to scientific method is exactly my argument why it is not scientific. So, sciences presuppose philosophy that provides it its essential concepts.

[Anonymous No.5174732]

>>5174641
⇒i'm not english
Me neither. That's not an excuse for posting factually wrong statements (as you did). Facts are not a matter of language.

⇒When you receive a Phd, you are a philosophy doctor.
PhD is an empty label. If for some historical reason the title was "wanker", would you say that a person with this degree always has to be a chronic masturbator? Btw only amerifats call it a "PhD". In my country it's simply a doctorate.

⇒one of the 4 causes
The 4 causes are arbitrary nonsense and nothing more than a relict of archaic, very primitive thinking. Nobody ever took them seriously. They are almost nowhere applicable and make no sense unless you artificially twist semantics as hard as possible.

⇒"My carpet is black" is a fact? Yes? No? a scientific one?
Are you too stupid to identify the color of your carpet?

⇒"We are historical being" is a fact?
That's not even a complete sentence, let alone a meaningful one.

⇒fact are always interpreted
Facts are objective and exist independent of interpretation. Troll harder, idiot.

⇒but he knew sciences pretty well
Obviously not, if he believes science requires no thinking.

⇒Theory, matter, science, idea, truth, knowledge, fact, observation, rational, thinking, etc. etc. etc. are all CONCEPTS made BY PHILOSOPHERS
Yeah, just like eating, sitting, breathing and sex - everything is philosophy. Congratulations, you rendered the word "philosophy" redundant and meaningless. Thanks for confirming how dead philosophy really is, if even its name does not convey any information anymore.

⇒analytic philo
Are you fucking kidding me? You couldn't have chosen a worse example. Analytic philosophy is the most anti-scientific variety of philosophy.

⇒science is a certain PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION
Science is application of the scientific method. The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. If scientists wasted time contemplating their own existence or questioning whether reality is really real, they'd never get shit done.

>>5174688
⇒5. Add /⇒/i at the bottom
Why the modifier for case insensitive? Are you afraid I might use a capital implication arrow?

[Anonymous No.5174741]

>>5174732
Holy shit this is the most retarded comment I've read on 4chan in a while. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.5174742]

>>5174706
Look at the definition in the picture. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5174754]

>>5174741
Leave the kindegarten level insults on /pol/. /lit/ is a literature board. Higher level of discourse is to be expected here.

[Anonymous No.5174756]

>>5174754
>Higher level of discourse
>responding to arrows
Pick only one

[Anonymous No.5174759]

>>5174756
⇒ad hominem

[Anonymous No.5174761]

>>5174732

what field are you in, arrow? you always manage to dodge any question related to what you do. it would up your credibility substantially if you would just tell us.

[Anonymous No.5174766]

>>5174759

you would have had to have presented actual arguments for this to be ad hominem. as it stands, you didn't--you never do--so attacking your standing is perfectly legitimate.

[Anonymous No.5174769]

>>5174761
The discussion is not about my personal life and I won't give you enough information to dox me.

[Anonymous No.5174770]

>>5174732
>The scientific method does not involve any philosophy

2/10 to your trolling efforts. (Aplying especial pointing system for underages.)

[Anonymous No.5174781]

>>5174769

You could have simply responded with "physics," or "evolutionary biology," or "chemistry."

So, nothing then. You aren't actual in any science field. You just like to pretend you are.

[Anonymous No.5174784]

>>5174766
Your denial doesn't make my arguments go away. Try again.

>>5174770
Science is separated from philosophy. There is no philosophy in the scientific method. Observation requires no philosophy. Forming an explanatory hypothesis does not require philosophy. Logically deducing testable predictions does not require philosophy. Experimentally testing said predictions does not require philosophy. No matter how loud you scream "u cannot know nuthin", science will continue to work.

[Anonymous No.5174786]

>>5174784

statements aren't arguments. try again.

[Anonymous No.5174788]

Any way philosophy does pretty good, it's just retards and people that want to make money of it that think there is some sort of crisis.

But scholarship wise we are almost in a golden age.

[Anonymous No.5174789]

>>5174784
>There is no philosophy in the scientific method.
the foundation of the scientific method was poured and shaped by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5174790]

>>5174732
you are ignorant for suggesting science is not philosophy's brainchild, but I am willing to overlook this.

science is insufficient as far as our epistemological needs go. science merely deals with deterministic models, looking for causation, which isn't falsifiable. it's done pretty good so far and I'm sure it will keep doing a good job at throwing deterministic frameworks on everything.

however, the inter-subjective framework that governs people and generates concerns for ethics and shit, requires a different kind of epistemology. even if science was to map-out inter-subjectiviy, it doesn't do much for us. we're still left with what we decide to do with this knowledge. I'm not saying philosophy can solve these inter-subjective matters, but it does a good job at creating useful categories which can augment our understanding of ''muh feelings'' which are very different from person to person.

[Anonymous No.5174794]

>>5167149
>Implying OP has read any philosophy.

He's probably just someone with a generalised view of something, with a bone to pick for no reason other than to aggrandise himself.

[Anonymous No.5174795]

>>5174781
Why does it matter? If I said "physics", what would be your response? Would you want me to do your homework? Would you force me into a discussion about improperly defined pop sci misconceptions? Would you google a research paper with lots of scary buzzwords, so you can "test" me with pretentious question you yourself don't even understand?

[Anonymous No.5174796]

>>5166870
>grouping all philosophical opinion as one
oh brother.

[Anonymous No.5174797]

>>5174784
>science is separated from philosophy
>there is no philosophy in the scientific method
>observation requires no philosophy
If you truly believe this, then you don't know science or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5174802]

>>5174795

you seem defensive, and a tad paranoid.

which branch of physics?

[Anonymous No.5174804]

>>5174784
To say "observation requires no philosophy" is a philosophical statement!
1. Metaphysic thesis that think that the observable beings are the more real, the truest.
2. Is not scientific statement since you don't talk about something observable, factual. Your statement is philosophical.

If you wanna troll, troll better !

[Anonymous No.5174812]

>>5174786
Facts are good arguments. They are good because I know you cannot argue against them. That's why you resort to shitposting instead. Keep it going. You entertain me.

>>5174789
Just like chemistry arose from alchemy. Science made philosophy obsolete like astrophysics made astrology obsolete.

>>5174790
⇒science merely deals with deterministic models
Bullshit. Please go to school and stop being so ignorant of science.

[Anonymous No.5174814]

Computer scientist (code monkey) here. I respect philosophers. They have on average a 10 points higher IQ than CS students. Too bad they will live unemployed forever drowning in college debt, but that sure is some dedication to the things you love, so hat's off for that.

[Anonymous No.5174817]

>>5174784
Ah i get where your confusion comes from son.

You think the scientific method is just a recipe from a cookbook, just a steps list.

[Anonymous No.5174820]

>>5174812
>Facts are good arguments
No, they're not. That doesn't even make sense. A fact is not an argument.

>Science mad philosophy obsolete
Science and philosophy don't attempt to do the same things. That's like saying Mayonnaise made ketchup obsolete and now you put it on your french fries.

You're really clueless about this, and yet you keep asserting all of this nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5174825]

>>5174814

[Anonymous No.5174827]

>>5174812

facts, on their own, are not arguments. neither are statements of fact.

"water boils at 100 degrees centigrade" is not an argument.

regardless, you haven't made many statements of fact, mostly just declarations of your opinion. these are also not arguments.

[Anonymous No.5174828]

>>5174797
I know both and you're full of shit. Please stop spreading ignorance.

>>5174802
None of your fucking business. I come here to be anonymous.

>>5174804
If every statement is "philosophical", then the word "philosophy" conveys no meaningful information anymore. Thanks for confirming that philosophy is useless and dead.

[Anonymous No.5174834]

Science and Math are technically branches of philosophy. Those plus political philosophy have become so relevant and pervasive that it makes the rest of philosophy look like nothing at all.

tl;dr philosophy hasn't changed, it's grown

[Anonymous No.5174836]

>>5174812
>Bullshit. Please go to school and stop being so ignorant of science.

name one instance in which it does not deal with deterministic models, through deterministic thinking. protip: you can't, as we have no other way of result-oriented thinking. what appears to be non-deterministic is observed until correlations are strong enough to suggest causation. but please go ahead and give an example of a non-deterministic 'system'. even better give an example of scientific cognition that does not involve deterministic thinking.

[Anonymous No.5174839]

>>5174828
You come here to be anonymous or to become anonymous? I think there is a pathology here. You probably drop out of high school, smoking weed in your parent's basement. Virgin.

[Anonymous No.5174840]

>>5174820
The dictionary defines "argument" as "a fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence". What now? Are you gonna tell me the dictionary doesn't real because reality doesn't real and u cannot know nuthin? Never go full retard.

[Anonymous No.5174841]

>>5174828

I myself specialize in fluid mechanics. Right now I'm working with graphics engineers to produce photo-realistic wave motions in computer generated imagery.

Have fun in school, or whatever it is you do!

[Anonymous No.5174842]

>>5174828
>Please stop spreading ignorance.
I'm not the one being ignorant here. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You're saying all this nonsense and expecting others to take you seriously. Why waste your time here? You clearly know nothing.

[Anonymous No.5174845]

>>5174840
Read the definition carefully, little buddy, and figure out where you're wrong on your own.

[Anonymous No.5174847]

>>5174827
See >>5174840 and educate yourself. If you refuse to accept that facts can be used as arguments, then you are brain damaged.

[Anonymous No.5174856]

>>5174840
>a fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence
What dictionary are you using? A fact is not an argument.

>>5174847
You're probably the same guy as above, but either way, you're really sloppy with your language. Fact != argument.

[Anonymous No.5174858]

>>5174836
The following you should have heard mentioned in high school: quantum mechanics, probability theory, nondeterministic Turing machines. It's okay though if you don't know what these words mean. I would believe you if you told me you failed your mandatory science and math classes.

[Anonymous No.5174859]

>>5174836
But the Copenhagen interpretation is specifically non-deterministic. Some deterministic interpretations would be many worlds or de Broglie–Bohm.

The interpretation of QM is actually one of the problems where philosophy of science is really highlighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Nature_of_interpretation

[Anonymous No.5174869]

>>5174858
please stop , you are embarrasing yourself.

[Anonymous No.5174870]

>>5174839
Thanks for letting us know of your insecurities. You're so boring, I can't even be arsed to mock them.

>>5174841
I never asked for this information. Do you want an upvote or something? Go to a non-anonymous forum.

[Anonymous No.5174887]

>>5174847

>on their own
>put forward as proof or evidence

If someone claims "water never boils," the statement "water boils at 100 degrees centigrade, and this may be demonstrated by putting water in a pot, and putting that pot on a hot stove" would then count as an argument against the claim "water never boils." But *on its own*, there is nothing about the statement "water boils at 100 degrees centigrade" that makes it an argument.

That's a simple case. Satisfying single-statement arguments are extremely rare, and one usually needs to make a chain of statements (premises), followed by a conclusion, to formulate a complete argument. When making a controversial claim, such as "philosophy is pointless," you need more than that statement itself to produce an argument--you need a series of premises that support that claim.

Arguments are typically made to persuade others to your position. Making bald assertions about things you don't understand doesn't seem like the best course to this end, does it?

[Anonymous No.5174897]

>>5174870

if you're such a science jockey, why do you waste time on /lit/ with all us philosotards? are you trying to convert the heathens? what?

[Anonymous No.5174905]

>>5174869
>>5174856
>>5174845
>>5174842
“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”
-- Sam Harris

I cannot argue with people who refuse to accept a fact as an argument. If you so vehemently insist in screaming "I want to stay ignorant and there's nothing you can do about it", then there's nothing I can do for you. Whatever mental illness forces you to pretend being retarded on 4chan, some day you will regret it.

[Anonymous No.5174911]

>>5174858
quantum mechanics is non-deterministic how? you probably do not understand time which is what leads you to believe that the areas in QM that challenge the order of cause-effect that we're used to, in fact indicate a cancellation of causality. you're wrong. scientific descriptions are the narratives of causality.

probability theory is simply deterministic intuition applied to things that haven't been proven to be deterministic, as nothing has proven to be stochastic. as I've said, determinism isn't falsifiable. just because muh probability is applied to thingss that we haven't yet figured out, isn't an argument for randomness or stochastic systems.

a non-deterministic Turing machine is theoretical, as most attempts at building them have failed miserably. why? well... trying to find a mathematical model for randomness, or reverse engineer causality into non-deterministic systems, are contradictions. you can't build randomness. the best you can hope for is faking it. even then, reverse-engineering your first instance of reverse-engineering, would lead to a cause.

try harder Arrows. your narcissistic anger amuses me.

[Anonymous No.5174912]

>>5174887
⇒Making bald assertions about things you don't understand doesn't seem like the best course to this end, does it?

That's a very bald assertion and it doesn't convince me. Could you please substantiate it?

[Anonymous No.5174915]

>>5174870

I just thought you'd be interested in what an actual scientist actually does, being the science enthusiast that you are.

[Anonymous No.5174919]

>>5174905
No, anon, saying a fact is identical to an argument is like saying that a steel cylinder is identical to a scalpel. You can use facts in arguments, but facts also exist independent of rational entities. Arguments, on the other hand, do not.

[Anonymous No.5174922]

>>5174912

It's actually a question. Notice the interrogative at the end? Granted, it's rhetorical, but that doesn't alter its genera.

[Anonymous No.5174961]

>>5174919
⇒saying a fact is identical to an argument

Nobody ever said this. Work on your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.5174966]

>>5174911
>quantum mechanics is non-deterministic how
The Copenhagen interpretation, which is the most prominent, is not deterministic. Many physicists who disagreed have come up with alternative interpretations which ARE deterministic. Don't pretend that there's just one interpretation and we have it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.5174968]

>>5174961

>back-pedaling this hard

kek 2.0

[Anonymous No.5174979]

>>5174961
>I cannot argue with people who refuse to accept a fact as an argument
>a fact as an argument
>a fact
>as
>an argument

[Anonymous No.5174986]

>>5166870
'lets try to falsify it' as the scientific core is conceited by Karl Popper. Using what is loosely on the right, if you are referring to Kantianisms definition of the absolute and truth. FYI Popper he was a full-time philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5174989]

>>5174911
Pure comedy gold. This is what happens when a non-STEM person tries to talk about science. I'm considering to take a screenshot of your post to give /sci/ a good laugh.

This one killed my sides:
⇒a non-deterministic Turing machine is theoretical, as most attempts at building them have failed miserably

Please continue to produce such high quality comedy.

[Anonymous No.5175004]

>>5174915
I have much more interesting, more intellectually demanding and more profitable things going on than you.

>>5174968
Please learn to read.

[Anonymous No.5175012]

>>5175004

You first.

[Anonymous No.5175017]

>>5174966
for fuck's sake. the Copenhagen interpretation is about the qm methodology not being able to uncover causality, merely advancing on probabilities that stem from the same kind of observation that is used in newtonian physics. the copenhagen interpretation is not evidence of non-deterministic systems. it's a description of a methodology of dealing with what is assumed to be non-deterministic.

[Anonymous No.5175025]

>>5174961
>⇒
Stop that.

[Anonymous No.5175028]

>>5175004

Please learn what an argument is before you embarrass yourself like that again.

O, Eye m laffin.

[Anonymous No.5175031]

>>5175017
Let me quote the original request
>name one instance in which it does not deal with deterministic models, through deterministic thinking.

[Anonymous No.5175032]

>>5174989
you have said nothing, nor disproved anything.

[Anonymous No.5175036]

>>5175025
That's like asking the guy who writes with caps lock perpetually on to try using proper capitalization sometime. If you take that away, what do they have left?

[Anonymous No.5175050]

>>5175031
how are they non-deterministic? I could get a 5 year old to try and figure out a simple arithmetic sequence and it'll seem random to him. his intuition will still prompt him to understand it through deterministic methodologies... my point was that determinism is not falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.5175051]

>>5175032
I refuse to disprove a joke. Sorry, I'm not autistic.

[Anonymous No.5175057]

>>5175051
I was not joking.

[Anonymous No.5175066]

>>5175028
With arguments I already won. But obviously for you that's not enough. You want to be destroyed psychologically. So please go on, force yourself into more and more discomfort by replying to me again and again even though you have no content at all anymore. At this point I could let you talk to cleverbot and you wouldn't even notice.

[Anonymous No.5175068]

>>5175057
An unintentional joke is still a joke. Anyway, stop talking shit and post more jokes.

[Anonymous No.5175077]

>>5175068
well, as unintentional jokes are still jokes, I will follow you in your non-argumentative attitude towards them, and ignore your entire presence. my offer still stands though. disprove any of my points (i.e: prove that those are stochastic systems dealt by science with non-deterministic methodologies).

[Anonymous No.5175098]

>>5175066

[Anonymous No.5175112]

>>5175066
Wow. Sad part about this autistic desire to appear antisocial, is that your humour has to suffer for it too.

[Anonymous No.5176355]

Philosophers never went away, most of them turned into scientists.

The others dissapeared up their own arses and expected everyone to give them money for "Thinking things"

Every one is a philosopher, and there is nothing special about those who claim to be one. Being able to speak in the language of the academy is worth more than actually having genuinly provoking and insightful thoughts.

[Anonymous No.5177236]

>>5174905
>quoting Sam Harris
Confirmed for wikipedia educated internet atheist.

How does it feel being an anit-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.5177738]

>>5176355
>everyone is a philosopher

yeah no m8

most people are too occupied/dense to even resolve the manifest hypocrisy inside their mind between hating starbucks for not paying taxes, and loving delicious frappucinos

a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. a lover of wisdom actually understands what it means to be wise. you cannot truly love something you do not understand or actually interact with.

[Anonymous No.5177882]

>>5176355
Philosophy has a tradition, a history and a set of problems and theories. Only people that work in that tradition are philosophers and you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.5178140]

>>5177738
⇒a philosopher is a lover of wisdom

But wisdom is a spook. Even Socrates, the most famous "philosopher", denies and rejects the very notion of wisdom.

[Anonymous No.5178205]

>>5178140
>Wisdom is a spook
>Socrates rejected the notion of wisdom
Wow, just kill yourself. Might I suggest hemlock? You would probably already think Socrates was advocating its use with your poor comprehension.

[Anonymous No.5178239]

>>5178205
Let's apply the Socratic method.

Tell me, oh anon, what is wisdom?

[Anonymous No.5178243]

>>5178205
According to Socrates a philosopher's highest goal was total ignorance ("scio me nihil scire").

[Anonymous No.5178269]

>>5178243
> a philosopher's highest goal was total ignorance
The world is already there! Yeay.

[Anonymous No.5178280]

>>5178239
Nah, I'll pass. I can explain how arrows was wrong though. But that's low-hanging fruit, since most people can probably do that without context.

>>5178243
Wow, that wasn't it at all. Socrates wanted people to ACKNOWLEDGE that they were ignorant. That made them wiser, knowing that they didn't know. It was this blame-worthy ignorance that he crusaded against, and this was the entire point of publicly humiliating people.

[Anonymous No.5178298]

>>5178280
⇒Nah, I'll pass.

So you cannot define wisdom? Yet you call yourself a "lover of wisdom"? How can you talk about a word whose meaning you don't know? How can you "love" a concept you can't even describe?

[Anonymous No.5178304]

>>5178298
You can't love something if you already have it. Read Symposium and edify yourself.

[Anonymous No.5178329]

>>5178304
As long as you refuse to define "wisdom", I'll have to dismiss it as a spook.

[Anonymous No.5178339]

>>5178329
I don't care what you do, you're still retarded.

[Anonymous No.5178344]

>>5178339
And here we see the typical reaction of a philosopher when his beliefs are proven to be inconsistent. He mentally regresses to kindergarten age and starts throwing an insulting tantrum.

[Anonymous No.5178348]

>>5178344
People don't have to be angry to comment on your complete lack of mental acuity. In fact, I find your lack of presence delightful.

[Anonymous No.5178364]

>>5178348
I asked a question. What is wisdom? Please answer my question, oh "lover of wisdom".

[Anonymous No.5178367]

>>5178364
No, I don't think it deserves an answer. You seem to have it all figured out on your own. It would be a shame if I were to stand between you and greatness.

[Anonymous No.5178381]

>>5171742
There is.
An intelligent person with great power.

[Anonymous No.5178397]

>>5178367
Why are you avoiding the question? You are a "lover of wisdom". Surely you can define that thing you claim to love.

[Anonymous No.5178445]

>>5178397
There is a small difference between avoiding a question and rejecting it outright.
No, we can't always define the things we love, not totally. Sometimes not at all. It's a shame that you seem so caught up in one-upping others, that there isn't even a point in having an argument with you, something I normally greatly enjoy, because there is no good faith. You don't actually want to know what wisdom is, you just want to show that I don't know what it is. Which shows how much of a neophyte you really are at this, because all along I've said I don't know. However, if your lone criterion for something being a spook is that you don't know what it is, then I could easily point out plenty of physical objects in the sky that would fit the same criterion.

People much more articulate than I have tried to tease out the nature of wisdom, and in good faith with each other. I have no interest in exploring the issue with someone who clearly doesn't share the mutual respect or honest intentions necessary to do so.

[Anonymous No.5178472]

>>5178445
⇒You don't actually want to know what wisdom is, you just want to show that I don't know what it is

But that's the point of the Socratic method. You yourself said so in >>5178280
⇒Socrates wanted people to ACKNOWLEDGE that they were ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5178491]

>>5178472
Oh wow, catching up now are we? Read the post you are responding to once more, but this time carefully.

[Anonymous No.5178526]

>>5178397
define "love"

[Anonymous No.5178528]

>>5178526
Love doesn't exist. It's a spook.

[Anonymous No.5178555]

>>5178528
Why do you use the terminology of a "philosofag" if you honestly believe everything they say is bullshit?

[Anonymous No.5178593]

>>5178555
Why not?

[Anonymous No.5178619]

>>5178593
Because SCIENCE and LOGIC.

[Anonymous No.5178629]

>>5178619
>apples are bullshit because oranges!

[Anonymous No.5180152]

>>5178629
Oranges ARE objectively better than apples.

[Anonymous No.5180203]

>>5174905
>-- Sam Harris
confirmed knows nothing about philosophy

-- or --

holy fucking shit, guys, we bit the bate so hard. .

[Anonymous No.5181455]

>>5174132
>>europoors get taught english the day they go to school
No they don't, and they don't use it nearly as often.

[Anonymous No.5181466]

[Anonymous No.5181562]

ayy lel