There is no value to philosophy.
In math class, they might say "Newton or Leibniz discovered Calculus". But nobody would ever try to teach you Calculus as Newton wrote it. For good reason, Newton's writings are the obscure, obtuse records of a centuries old genius from a different culture. Not exactly the kind of text that is ideal for students.
Since the time of Newton mathematicians and educators have expanded and refined the field. Advances in pedagogy have made the subject vastly more approachable.
Philosophy is wrong, or indistinguishable from being wrong.
Compare this, on the other hand, to math or computer science. I have never once corrected a mathematician, or found a substantive flaw in the body of computer science knowledge. I’m not acquainted with anyone who so much as believes they have. And yet, every undergraduate philosophy student, at the very least, believes they have found a flaw with some major philosopher.
In this same theme, every time I have found something in math or computer science, or chemistry, or physics, to be challenging or confusing, and my teachers say it is valuable to know, and I push through, I have found these challenges, unfailingly, to cohere into useful, reasonable concepts.
Conversely, I have never found this to be true in philosophy (exception: the one philosophy course my school offered in game theory, which was quite rigorous and also quite clearly a math course in disguise). Sometimes I will read a philosophical text and think:
“Is that what he means?”
Then study, read online, talk with friends about it and…
“I guess…? Maybe?”
Not to mention that the enthusiasm of study is dampened by the field being worthless.
“Aha! This is what he was trying to say. It can’t be demonstrated, has no value and is obviously wrong anyway.”
given your poor physical shape, your unfortunate
colleagues, your pitiful social skills and your alcohol problem – is that
you will not actually solve anything with philosophy.
idiot
great, keep thinking like this, the world needs scientists to specialize in a specific point of research, being a generalist isn't for everyone.
Just to give you a general idea,” he would explain to them. For of course some sort
of general idea they must have, if they were to do their work intelligently—though
as little of one, if they were to be good and happy members of society, as possible.
For particulars, as every one knows, make for virtue and happiness; generalities are
intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors
compose the backbone of society
>>1242550
Brainlets BTFO
And literature, poetry, and history will also appear worthless to an autist.
To Aristotle and the very early philosophers philosophy was supposed to be simply knowledge about everything, from plants to logic to politics to the cosmos. There was no difference between science and philosophy. Of course their methods were not the modern scientific method, but they had one. I don't think they would have approved of philosophers being some pseudo intellectual who is clueless about everything, but the sciences have specialized so much that is impossible for only one person to master them all. I guess philosophy shouldn't be a one-man job anymore.
In engineering, long gone are the days of the "inventor": one man is responsible for the whole project. Nowadays everything is done in teams. Why don't philosophers team up with other scientists etc. to achieve the goals of philosophy? Is it that the goals of philosophy aren't so high in demand? Or philosophers just don't want to let go of that "solitary genius wearing scarf" aura?
>>1242740
>Why don't philosophers team up with other scientists etc. to achieve the goals of philosophy?
Analytic philosophers interact with the science guys, or at least the papers thereof. Sometimes they are scientists themselves.
Same with mathematicians.
>>1242550
>But nobody would ever try to teach you Calculus as Newton wrote it. For good reason, Newton's writings are the obscure, obtuse records of a centuries old genius from a different culture.
>I don't like how a certain person writers, therefore the field they contributed to is worthless
Jesus fucking Christ, you're a pleb.
>>1242748
Good. If nowadays anyone were to try to investigate, say, epistemology, without listening to what psychologists, neuroscientists have to say, I would say he was only interested in the history of philosophy and becoming a philosophy teacher, not philosophy per se.
>>1242684
You can't make much money with those Useless subjects either.
*puts cigarette out on your forehead*
>>1243230
*teleports behind you and slashes you with my katana before you do*
nice try kid
>>1242550
Nah it is not entirely bullshit. But it makes no sense that "philosophers" are worth more as "ideas". Philosophers should've stayed anonymous like on here so we can value their ideas not themselves as a person.
>>1242550
Summary of your argument.
>only empirical sciences are valuable
>philosophy is not an empirical science
>therefore philosophy is not valuable.
Your argument is valid, congratulations. But valid is not the same as true (we have to thank philosophy for that distinction by the way). You have not proved at all your first premise, you just give the old philosophical description of sciences changing paradigm (which was described first by Kuhn, a philosopher of science).
The rest is just the typical worthless rant about "science is true cause it gave us computers"
>>1243245
I rarely hear anybody go "I agree with x philosopher because I really like his beard."
Would you extend your reason to science? Let's just not credit people with their findings. Who needs citations anyway?
>it's another positivist thread
kys
Humanities need to be extinct. They're a waste of time, money and resources. Not only are they completely worthless, they're also a cancer to society.
Gender theory, feminazism, SJWism and wouldn't be a thing if humanity students and professors were sent to gas chambers where they belong.
>>1243745
This. People shouldn't be allowed to think.
>>1242550
What you're doing right here is called philosophy. In other words, OP, you have no value to the world, like the faggot you are.
>>1243766
Engineers and doctors are far better critical thinkers than zombie hordes of SJWs.
>>1243245
>Philosophers should've stayed anonymous like on here so we can value their ideas not themselves as a person.
Some people hold the philosophy that you can't fully understand the idea without also considering the mind that it grows from, or that the mind holds valuable information about the merits of the idea.
>>1243766
>muh feels
>think
Nice bait you cock sucker
>>1243677
I think it is fine to call me out, as it wasn't the greatest analogy. But you did it badly.
My issue is that the study of philosophy insist on reading works of certain philosophers instead of incorporating them together.
When I read about evolution surely a few famous scientists will be mentioned, say Darwin, Gould and Dawkins (and a lot more that I don't know of). But everything is incorporated into one.
Maybe it only seems so because I am not studying philosophy. But when I looked up the study of philosophy, you are required to learn specific languages so you can read the original works.
I am not a STEMlord who thinks philosophy is worthless, I actually had interest studying it.
I've read several articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
But I'm put off by the ancestor worshipping that plagues the field.
Metaphysical philosophy, the majority, is worthless nonsense that led up to later post enlightenment thought such a metaphysics being nonsense and your sentiments
No one actually believes in form theory, its only studied from a historical perspective
>>1242550
Hey OP. Have you ever had a political discussion with a friend? Have you ever debated religion online, perhaps? Have you ever pointed out what you see as being a societal issue?
Congratulations! You have just entered into philosophy. This is why people who study politics are called "political philosophers", and why people who study Christianity are called "Christian philosophers", and why people who study the issues of society are called "moral philosophers". Even what you espouse here is a philosophy. It's called "empiricism".
Just trying to help you out :)
>>1243881
>No one actually believes in form theory
And yet all philosophical systems which deem there is a single Truth to obtain knowledge of have its fundamental notion at their roots.
>>1243881
No one believes in form theory, but people believe in a theory of mind, which is a direct descendant of that line of thinking. Much of old philosophy has died out and been replaced with "science" now. Psychology formed out of old philosophies about the nature of knowledge and being/truth. It's just that people like Socrates and his students knew very little of the brain, so they couldn't really put two and two together.
I just don't understand why anybody would study philosophy. Especially if you live in the US where studying is costly. If you are interested in it, why would you bother going through the tedium of boring classes, lectures, tests and papers when all you need to do is pick up a fucking book and study it by yourself. It's not like the philosophy degree you get eventually is worth anything. I guess enrolling is good if you want to meet people who share your interests and form a circlejerk with them.
>>1244074
Fucking utilitarian sheeple, using philosophy to criticize philosophy without even realizing it.
>>1242550
Poor boy
>>1244110
Nice one
>>1244118
>poor
You actually think that posting a self-portrait in a malaysian wood carving boards amounts to an argument.
Enrich us with your wealth of arguments or shut your cum deposit.
>>1244110
I did not criticize philosophy itself actually.
>>1244074
What about people interested in teaching, or writing for the entertainment industry? The latter might want to study it as a minor then.
>>1244177
This, I understand that value itself is something that philosophy deals with, but every sort of question related as to why someone should study philosophy gets "hahha muh utilitarianism". I have read many philosophers and had commented with professors and I think science still has gotten me a more concrete solution to many problems.
>>1244074
>he views the university as a mere content provider
Let me guess, you think everyone should attend "trade schools," too?
I certainly agree that most people should not go to a university and major in philosophy. But then, most people probably don't need to attend university at all; and the universities they do attend are barely worthy of the name. In the U.S. at least, most colleges are essentially credentialing services. You're just there to show future employers that you have some motivation and work ethic. The content of what you learn will likely be irrelevant for your job; your job could probably be performed by a high school graduate, but you need a college degree to compete. But you still shouldn't study philosophy, because in these sort of colleges, the humanities typically lack rigor, and everyone knows it.
But, if you actually attend a decent school, the principal value to be obtained is neither learning content, nor mere credentialing (although there certainly still is a significant value to the credentials). It's assumed that you're capable of absorbing content on your own. So instead, you're there to develop transubstantive skills, like critical thinking and writing. You also form connections with experts in the field, and your peers who will one day obtain that mantle. Neither of these things are available from some online code academy. But unless you are already interested in a specialized field, particularly medicine or engineering, there's no real detriment to studying philosophy as opposed to something else. This sort of education is not about job training for most people; and insofar as it helps you obtain a job, it's generally not the content you learn that matters anyway.
So basically, dont study philosophy or the humanities unless you attend an elite school; but this says more about the state of education than it does about philosophy or the humanities.
>>1243766
When the result of their thoughts is a cancer upon the entire fabric of society, then you are correct. They shouldn't. Reserve the pondering of important matters to people who aren't complete fucking idiots and leave the ponderings of "what should I have for breakfast today" to the rest.
>>1244324
Your post applies more to grad school though.
>>1242550
>There is no value to philosophy.
he philosophized at length, ignoring the fields of ethics
>substantive flaw in the body of computer science knowledge
Computer science as a practice has tons of flaws that mainly have to do with localization, internationalization, creating agreeable bodies of standards, disseminating information, and keeping corrupt officials from controlling computer science education.
These are all philosophical issues of ethics, economics, culture, politics, axiology, epistemology, logic etc.
Anything about which we have to make decisions before all the information is in, out of necessity, and due to the pace at which things move faster than we can study them, falls under the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
Philosophy is not useless. We could for instance use physics to derive all sorts of information that is hard to argue with, but the real philosophical issue isn't whether that info is true, but what to do with it. The knowledge of modern physics, for instance has been utilized at various points to make weapons. Whether we should have done that or not was and is an important, not *useless* philosophical issue.
t. poo poo head
>>1243276
>Your argument is valid, congratulations
*ahem* philosophy, as a huge category, no, is not empirical science, but empirical science is a philosophy.
Moreover it is proof that philosophy can be useful, unlike what OP said.
>>1244395
But most people who study philosophy as a major don't know jack shit about math, physics ir CopSci
>>1244402
Are you aware of the difference between validity and truth?
>>1244435
That is because philosophy curricula hasn't caught up with modern industry, NOT because philosophy is useless.
>>1242550
Isn't philosophy subjective like a movie or book?
>>1242550
t. STEM undergrad who knows very little about philosophy
>>1244455
yes but that doesn't make it useless
>>1244455
Not entirely, What does one make of a philosophy, for instance, whose only rule is "Be objective."
Sure the conclusion that one should be objective might be subjective, but the content of the philosophy itself leans towards objectivity.
>>1244449
Then for the time it is pretty useless?
>>1242550
Locke, Smith, Marx and arguably all the main existentialist philosophers changed the world and , have almost on a subversive level, crafted how the average man views life and the values he holds. The world does move with purpose even if it may be all a lie.
>>1244497
They didn't change the world, the ideas were present already they just did a tremendous job in formalizing them and creating an academic study of them.
>>1244531
What's your point? That ideas are built off of other ideas? That doesn't change the impact that a unique perspective like Marx has had on the world.
>>1244730
Yes, but the motors of change are the ideas in practice, not the people who formalize it.
>>1244455
Perspectives can be compared and refined. This is what the scientific approach is, a (philosophically) refined perspective that is useful to us.
>>1244492
Academically majoring in philosophy is arguably useless.
Philosophizing and making philosophical decisions, i.e. performing philosophy is not only useful, it's inevitable.
>>1244435
By the way it's also because people who study philosophy as a major aren't majoring in math, physics, or CompSci.
After all, would you expect those majors to know anything about philosophy?
>>1245193
>not the people who formalize it.
But somebody has to formalize the idea before anyone can mobilize that idea into action, and the people who are good at mobilizing are not necessarily the guys who are good at formalizing
>>1244074
>I just don't understand why anybody would study philosophy.
To become smarter. Also, people who enjoy a good game (i.e. men) are attracted to it, since it's the ultimate intellectual game to play.
>>1245997
Then how did shit happen before academia was even a thing?
>>1245999
That is pretty bold statement only philosophers claim, though you could argue the same about math.
>>1244455
No.
>>1242550
sciences are philosophy. kill yourself, retard.
>>1242550
>I'm an idiot, so philosophy sucks.
>>1246132
at an extremely sluggish rate, often requiring violent upheavals in order to force societal change at the point of a sword.
>>1246135
Philosophy has more men surrounding it than math does.
>>1242550
tl;dr
>>1246235
>You sound drunk.
You sound ignorant.
Protip: scrawny math nerds ain't men.
>>1246444
The irony of modern "intellectuals" is how uneducated they are about literally the oldest, hardest and overall manliest academic field.
>>1246480
Sitting in your room all day doing calculations and studying purely abstract objects that do not actually exist such as zeroes and negatives isn't manly and rarely attracts men with power such as warlords and dictators. Philosophy does, however, and continues to be a field that calls to aggressive action more often than math does. And I know you're talking about math, because you said the oldest and math predates philosophy.
Also,
>math
>harder
What a joke. There are thousands of guys who are excellent at math working on wall street, at NASA, various other labs across the globe. There are literally only a handful of people at any given time who are truly able to philosophize, and that's being generous.
I'd only agree or at least find it reasonable to assert that math was manlier if you believed that terrible theory that autism is a form of hypermasculinity, because math indeed requires more autism than philosophy does.
>>1245896
Do we then discuss the former in preparation of the inevitable latter?
>>1246537
What distinction are you making between being truly able to philosophize and not being able to philosophize? Where do you draw the line?
Because that sounds like a philosophical issue, but you yourself are unlikely to be one of your alleged "true philosophers".
>>1246537
Again, I don't need to prove anything about the state of modern intellectuals because you make a darn good job showing your lack of knowledge of the field and your overall insecurity.
>>1246573
>What distinction are you making between being truly able to philosophize and not being able to philosophize? Where do you draw the line?
A person who writes genuine, good philosophy (i.e. something extensive which expands on the philosophical tradition, that isn't a half-assed regurgitation of what others have already said) is someone who can truly philosophize. If you narrow it down to people who can do this, it is an extremely rare form of genius in the world that is completely reliant on INSIGHT, something dependent on extremely balanced circumstance and opportunity.
Math on the other hand, can be learned by going to school and studying very hard by quite a few people. Not everyone is a genius mathematician that revolutionizes the field, but there are many who are exceptionally good at it. Of course we can also just limit it to those revolutionary geniuses for math too, but even then, I feel like there are more who are just good at math than there are people who can read and understand philosophy but who don't truly philosophize themselves.
>>1246563
What? That every single thought is in some way philosophy? Reductionist shit.
>>1246599
Wow nigger, you are clueless
>>1246604
Not an argument.
>>1246607
ibid.
>>1246600
>>1246600
It's a value judgement of the worth of certain kinds of philosophy. To do so means having to make an appraisal of what kinds of philosophy are good, and what are bad. And to do so with any merit would mean that a person needs to be well versed in the subject material, much of which is reactionary or cumulative in asking the same questions: What kind of philosophy are useful, worthwhile, true, real, etc...
So yeah, it's a philosophical question. But by his statement, it's one that very few people understand in creative terms and answer. Otherwise, you can parrot. But who do you parrot? The answer to this question will change depending on who.you are parroting. So it doesn't sound like you would be right by your standards, that there is a "true" form of philosophy, even available for paraphrase.
>>1246624
This Ibid guy sure wrote a lot of papers
>>1243276
>only empirical sciences are valuable
he didn't mention any empirical science, just math and compsci
Fundamental the problem with philosophy is there are no answers in it. Yes, I get that that's kinda the point of it, but ponderous musings don't really help, and most people appreciate empirical evidence far more than answer-less questions.
>>1243745
"Gender theory, feminazism, SJWism"
#1 is a valid area of study, the last two are fucking anti-intellectual memes. Yes, we get it, you're not a minority or a woman so you don't care about social justice. However, there are people out there who weren't abused in the same way that you were as a child that actually care about others.
SJWs are a fucking meme, don't sit here and lie. Remember that every Tumblr asshole would be just as annoying coming from your side of the story.
>>1244074
>when all you need to do is pick up a fucking book and study it by yourself.
This is true of any topic known to man you fucking moron.
>>1247143
>Yes, we get it, you're not a minority or a woman so you don't care about social justice.
Many women and minority members don't care about that either.
I'd challenge you to find me an Asian doctor in the United States that makes a six-figure income, being a SJW psycho.
>>1247175
Not all minorities care about social justice, not all women care about social justice, these things are obvious. But a great deal do, particularly minorities that get treated like shit. Even if minorities on the whole didn't care, they'd still need help. Social Justice is the only way since the Left doesn't exist right now and the right hates helping people.
No one is the fucking stereotypical SJW you have in your head because all it is a fear-mongering meme. If anyone's the psycho...
>>1243245
you realize analytic philosophy won, right?
>>1247204
This post is bait, and I'm not going to reply.
>>1247204
>Social Justice is the only way since the Left doesn't exist right now and the right hates helping people.
Why does Social Justice have to be a 'left' thing? The argument for LGBT rights is, at it's core, an argument for liberty.
>>1242550
lack of thought and research concealed by brute length and "reasonable" tone of writing. "Philosophy is wrong" is an impossible position since for a question such as "is the mind made of an immaterial substance" the answer must be either yes or no and both of these are positions taken by different philosophers. one of the two positions have to be right.
>>1244455
no, also see above.
>>1247223
And liberty is a socially left idea. The entire right is socially anti-liberty in many ways, with many different justifications. In fact, I'm almost positive that one of the main distinguishing factors of the social left and the social right is that the social right is against liberal, socially left ideas.
>>1247216
How is it bait? Are you saying that because it hits too close to home? Did you get assblasted because I called you out for being an irrational faggot crying about imaginary "SJW" boogeymen? Get lost.
>>1247242
>In fact, I'm almost positive that one of the main distinguishing factors of the social left and the social right is that the social right is against liberal, socially left ideas.
Go on, I would like to see an example.
>>1247252
the right wing is defined as "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."
wikipedia says it to be
"Right-wing politics hold that some forms of social stratification or social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition."
the left wing is defined as "the liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system."
wikipedia says it to be "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished."
two definitions of liberty "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."
"the power or scope to act as one pleases."
Wikipedia defines liberty as "Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.[3] Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. "
in particular, pay close attention to the following string:
"liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints"
of which we find many in every single right-wing group, save for (in terms of social policies) libertarians.
>>1247242
No, because you said "even if they didn't care, they'd still need help." and "the right hates helping people."
It's pretty clear that you're a baitmaster, or you're a 19 year old woman/hipster who has just taken his or her first introductory course in Sociology at university, and you think you're the superman that will save the poor minority from the evil capitalist patriarchy.
>>1247242
>liberty is a socially left idea
Wrong. So, so wrong. Jesus. People, never believe anything you read on 4chan.
>>1247287
Are you trying to argue that minorities don't have worse outcomes, and that these worse outcomes are not at least in part due to (please don't sperg out, I'm trying really hard no to lose my shit) oppression in some way by the ruling class?
And as I demonstrated above, the social right is anti-liberty, which is literally anti-helping people.
Do you want to help people? Then your policies are either socially liberal or you're one of those deluded "Strength through unity! Ban x because it's degenerate! XD" fucks that has no idea what helping people means. If you don't want to help people, you're just some right-winger.
>>1247297
Read my post above. Your feelings on a topic don't fucking matter when there are accepted definitions for words.
>>1247269
>"Right-wing politics hold that some forms of social stratification or social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3]
Isn't this just Privlege/Patriarchy Theory?
>"Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4]
SJWism is all about social inequality.
>"liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints"
But it's only the Left that get's to define what arbitrary restraints are.
I guess it comes down to what is deemed Right and Left. If right and left both view liberty differently (which they do) then it makes sense that both would want liberty.
>>1247306
But you have merged 'helping people' with 'left wing'. You don't think that the Right wants to help people?
Note: For the most part when I say "right" I mean social right, not the economic right.
>>1247315
Can you not just pick and choose what you can argue for? Did you read the two liberty definitions? Arbitrary restrains makes a whole lot of sense in the context of "the power or scope to act as one pleases." For example, making most drugs illegal certainly gets in the way of one's liberty, and yet, it's a standard for right-wing ideologies. Yes, you might feel like your banning of drugs brings liberty... But by definition, it restricts liberties.
Same with LGBT rights. A centerpiece for the right-wing is being anti whatever is considered ""deviant"" at the time. Once again infringing on one's liberty.
We have definitions for a reason.
>>1247320
They wouldn't choose the policies they do if they had the best interests of people in mind. Restricting the liberties that the right does makes lives significantly harder for the people who that affects.
But that's not all: We see other places with policies that do work, but the right chooses to ignore those. They would adopt the ideas that work if they truly cared about the well being of people.
>>1247337
>They wouldn't choose the policies they do if they had the best interests of people in mind.
lyl. Like what?
>>1247315
"Isn't this just Privlege/Patriarchy Theory?"
It's the agreed upon definition, anon. For the love of god.
"SJWism is all about social inequality. "
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Your imaginary boogeyman ideology thinks this? Who cares?
>>1247340
LGBT rights and drug laws are the first two to come to mind, and are certainly the most prolific.
>>1247353
What "LGBT rights"?
As for drugs, I support their decriminalization, and I don't consider myself on the Left.
>>1247356
Marriage, adoption. Not too long ago people wanted to repeal Clinton's discrimination stuff.
"I don't consider myself on the Left"
That's because when people identify themselves politically, they take their economic stance rather than their social stance. So yeah, you're sure as hell not me in terms of economics, but by definition you're socially on the left. Sorry.
>>1247378
I am socially liberal sure. But liberal only means Left in America, because you guys are retarded.
Also, marriage and adoption aren't "rights".
>>1247381
"Also, marriage and adoption aren't "rights""
Notice that I mentioned employment discrimination as well.
They really are rights, though.
"But liberal only means Left in America"
Yeah maybe to some Americans, but to me it means socially left and supporter of public ownership. But that's a story for another thread.
>>1247390
>They really are rights, though.
No they aren't. They're government privileges. If they were rights, the government wouldn't need to involved.
>>1247398
to be*
https://mqphil.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/10-reasons-not-to-do-philosophy/
Just leaving this here. :^)
>>1242550
it is philosophy to think the reason why you are always watch 4chan and can not have sex with real girls.
>>1247701
>The person we usually think of as
the founder of the whole shebang, Socrates
Didn't even get past the first reason. Shit article.
>>1242550
Math is a branch of philosophy
>Philosophy is garbage that should be thrown away
>Here just watch me make a philosophical argument to prove this
>>1247873
One doesn't study a hammer to drive nails.
>>1242550
>Compare this, on the other hand, to math or computer science. I have never once corrected a mathematician, or found a substantive flaw in the body of computer science knowledge. I’m not acquainted with anyone who so much as believes they have. And yet, every undergraduate philosophy student, at the very least, believes they have found a flaw with some major philosopher.
Holy shit! It's almost as if... as if, philosophy and math / compsci are different fields... as if they work differently and have different metrics of measurement. Damn, this is a fucking revolutionary discovery you have here. If I were you I'd get on officially publishing this in a paper pronto before someone steals your thunder.
>In this same theme, every time I have found something in math or computer science, or chemistry, or physics, to be challenging or confusing, and my teachers say it is valuable to know, and I push through, I have found these challenges, unfailingly, to cohere into useful, reasonable concepts. Conversely, I have never found this to be true in philosophy
That's some deep shit right there. I never thought about it that way before. Who would have thought other than you that the entire fields of ethics, aesthetics, existentialism, epistemology, theology, art and culture criticism, politics, metaphysics, logic, etc. were in fact all completely useless, unreasonable areas of thought for the human race, while questions like "What is the degree of a polynomial?" and "How do you find the vertex of a quadratic formula?" are truly critical to daily life on earth, insanely useful to everyone's survival that solves all riddles of existence and resolves all problems in life? You truly are a genius, OP.
>>1246718
>Fundamental the problem with philosophy is there are no answers in it
I mean, have you read anything in philosophy at all?
EVERY SINGLE philosophy is an answer onto itself. There is no lack of answers in philosophy — if there is a "problem" at all, it's in the fact that there are TOO MANY answers in philosophy. But the problem is not actually with philosophy itself, but with neurotic, weakling retards who can't deal with there being multiple answers to every problem, and need a single, authoritative system in order to feel any sense of integrity in their existence at all.
>ponderous musings don't really help
That's all philosophy is to you? Now I know you haven't read shit.
Guess what? Philosophy creates culture. Culture gives you your values. Philosophy is more than just "ponderous musings" — it is any form of thinking about life at all. Any form of ordering the world around you into a useful arrangement to you.
Why do we need philosophers then when every philosophy is an answer onto itself, you might ask. The reason is because some answers are greater than others.
>>1248017
The philosopher invents the hammer used to drive nails. Non-philosophical types and the uninformed can still hammer nails in without such a tool, but you'll be using rough lopsided stones with poor grip and other less precise and slower tools to do it without the philosopher's help, which is less efficient and just stupid.
Philosophers are geniuses with penetrating insight into the inner workings of the creative processes behind thought. Not everyone has this talent, despite what people's egos want to believe. Hence why a philosopher uses a well designed hammer with precision and a strong grip, and everyone without the philosopher's help or without this insight themselves uses smooth lopsided stones.
>>1246235
>But is that necessarily related to the number of academics studying economy, social relations etc?
It's difficult to imagine the industrial revolution and age of enlightenment taking place without the extensive network of western universities, where natural philosophy turned into science and where the humanities fueled the transition from ancient economies dominated by powerful landowners to modern economies dominated by capital owners and the working class.
>Consider a world were Marx was never born, does that mean communist regímenes would have never existed?
Some other thinker would have eventually realized that the way humans divide and organize their labor matters and changes over time and his followers would have also misinterpreted his works as well.
>>1243745
but it is you american who have corrupted humanities
>>1246600
>Reductionist shit.
he philosophized.
Every single thought is in some way philosophy?
Most nontrivial thoughts a human has, once object permanence and formal logic and all that other shit, are established, yes. Most thoughts are philosophical in nature and have to do with dealing with the world with limited knowledge and time.
Science is a perfect philosophy for objectively gathering knowledge, and mathematics is a perfect philosophy for logically grouping arbitrary things, but experiments are expensive and time-consuming, and decisions about which experiments to perform and what to do with the knowledge afterwards are fucking important. This is philosophy.
>>1249134
>Science is a perfect philosophy for objectively gathering knowledge, and mathematics is a perfect philosophy for logically grouping arbitrary things, but experiments are expensive and time-consuming, and decisions about which experiments to perform and what to do with the knowledge afterwards are fucking important. This is philosophy.
Succinctly put
