Who was the greatest philosopher who ever lived?
I nominate Bertrand Russell taking philosophy in the direction of logic and away from continental pseudophilosophy
bumpity doo
>>223393
>islander Hume is btfo by based Kant
>every next islander philosopher is butthurt
>muh I can't understand this sheatt, it must be just pretencious
>adjusts bowtie
>sip tea
>from now on, I will work on real and practical philosophy
>LOGIC
Bravo, bravissimo
>>223459
Kek
Russell's offhand rejection of german philosophy (of which demonstrably he had a garbage grasp of) cost us decades of rabble in the idiotic doctrines of logical empiricism, fuck it wasn't even until Strawson's "The Bounds of Sense" that people started rereading Kant and understanding the monstrous flaws in naked empiricism, analytic philosophers should be studying fucking fichte by now but noooo, let's all squabble over logical criterion and fail to ask ourselves if the problems we're pursuing have ever been asked before or maybe even dealt with. I consider myself of the "analytic" school but goddamn it, even my fucking colleagues have the spottiest reading in the history of philosophy and it all leads back to crap like Bertrand's A History or Popper's The Open Society (another fuckstorm of psychologizing the "evil" motives of Hegel in justifying the prussian state (regardless of the fact that the state while Hegel lived was liberal and reformist and the king personally informed the successor to his berlin chair that Hegel's enlightenment politics should be overcome), their sidesweeping of history is literally sam harris or dick dork tier 99% of the time
also the greatest philosopher who ever lived was Diogenes.
if anyone in this thread says wittgenstein I'll question them about his work until its blatantly obvious that they've never read it.
Always nice to see Reddit paying us a visit.
But really I am fucking sick of Russel.
>>223393
>analytic philosophy
>real
It's just math, son.
>>223393
John Green probably.
Naturally Wittgenstein, after all, I am from /lit/ aka the faggot circlejerk club
>>223480
its obviously wittgenstein m8
>>223480
>also the greatest philosopher who ever lived was Diogenes.
That's a funny way to spell 'Epictetus'
I absolutely don't understand the circlejerk about Wittgenstein and Russel, especially since it seems to be motivated by some "formal logic ftw" attitude like with >>223393
If you really like formal logic and positivism that much, shouldn't you be rather obsessing about Frege? Or Carnap?
Absolute Empiricism and Positivism are dead concepts. They were dead before Russel came on the seen but the analytic are too stupid to understand this crap.
Seriously what has Russel actually done? His most popular book is just a history of philosophy (and from what I've seen he fails to understand several such as Kant). His second most popular book is Why I am Not a Christian which isn't exactly ground-breaking.
Didn't Rorty eventually come out and say that philosopher doesn't matter and we should just decide ethics based on feelings? Didn't he say novels replaced philosophy? The last "great" analytic basically said the whole school was closed.
>>223573
>>223579
oh you're a fan? in 6.01 in the tractatus, when he states "Therefore the general form of an operation /'(n) is [E, N(E)] ' (n) ( = [n, E, N(E)]). This is the most general form of transition from one proposition to another." how do you feel about his his criterion for the truth functional modalities of the proposition? do you think he encapsulates them? or are you just giving lip service to a philosopher you don't understand?
Aristotle
Everything else is just refining his approach, and moving away from Plato's mysticism.
>>223794
>Plato's mysticism.
there is literally nothing wrong with mysticism
>>223785
many people would refuse to call rorty an analytic and just call him a neo-pragmatist. fuck I love rorty even though little of his material has academic material
>simultaneously piss off the entire analytic tradition by calling them all cartesian representationalists and the french continental school by saying that derrida is just garbage and only the first division of heidegger's B&T has any merit whatsoever for philosophy
at least he birthed brandom
His Nietzsche vs Buddha role play just makes me laugh every time i read it. Can't believe a 'philosopher' could actually write it with sincerity.
>>223834
Not to mention it misrepresents both their philosophies. He describes Nietzsche as saying his philosophy is 'for everyone'. Buddha is shown as a hippy.
Russel is a terrible philosopher.
>>223834
Not to mention Russel is literally a c u c k o l d r y advocate, I'm pretty sure there's a quote by him goes something like
>Love between man and woman was ruined by the need to prove the legitimacy of the children.
literal c u c k
Isn't philosophy dead in and of itself anyways? I thought the real bleeding edge was linguistics...
>>223929
he fucked t. s. eliot's wife while they were still together
he advocated for kekery because he was mr. steal yo girl
>>223954
According to Steven Hawking anyway.
It is true that philosophy is facing a decline like the rest of the humanities. Most people don't have any interest in it because it can be very dry or incomprehensible and there is no effort to communicate it to laymen like there is with science.
aristotle desu
>>224033
fucking yuck. Don't ask me what I would do if I saw Deepak Chopra in the street.
I am considering making a new thread for this, but maybe its a QTDDIOT. I was reading a philosophy thread yesterday and Dan Dennet got trashed on it, and I couldnt pin down whether it was a christfag or a dualist who was critisizing him. Anyways I like the fact that he is calling into question "life" "free will" and maybe even "subjectivity" into question with a fiercly Materialist approach. Is he sidestepping massive amounts of past philosophy?
>>223393
This guy for starting pragmatism.
>>224033
>list of best sellers
>not very intellectual
What exactly would you expect to find in a best seller list from the New Age era?
>>224060
I don't consider any of the New Atheists interesting, I havn't seen much of their work but Dennet struck as the best.
In regards to philosophy and why pop-philosophy will never amount to anything, other than maybe being an introductory work: philosophy is like a tree, one philosopher and his ideas branch off from another. He may continue in a past philosophers work, refute him, or reinterpret him. You can't do philosophy without standing on the shoulders of giants and that involves having a direct lineage to older philosophers. You can pick any big name philosopher and find out the names of other people that influenced them and than those people will have people that influenced them.
Trying to just create your own thing without reading the greats (and the greats that those guys read) is going to result in shallow philosophy because philosophy is a tree.
>>224169
I get why people dislike the New Atheists. There is a fedora culture about their entire fanbase. Taken all separately, I like 3/4 of them.
Dawkins is probably done with being an evolutionary biologist, but lets not forget that he coined the term "meme" and the book The Selfish Gene was important in answering questions about how seemingly non-hedonistic behavior arises in people and animals
Hitchens was best as a writer, he's not a scientist or a philosopher
Dennet is trying to dead-end philoshopy by declaring subjectivity to be an illusion. I was hoping someone who made an earlier comment about Continental Philosophy would comment on him.
(Sam Harris is the one that doesnt really have a serious body of work outside of Atheism.)
>>224194
People dislike new atheists because they oversimplify complicated philosophical topics and more often than not don't know what they're talking about. Dan Dennet is considered the best of the bunch generally. He has a PhD in philosophy, so that explains that.
The fedora culture just makes it all the more obnoxious
>>224223
Is there any reason they should care about philosophy though?
Sure philosophy is just a dying subject that is being replaced by science.
>>223480
underrated post
>>224230
>Is there any reason they should care about philosophy though?
Well first you need to realize that they engage in philosophy all the time whether they want to admit it or not. When Dawkins attempts to refute a straw man version of the cosmological argument, he's doing (bad) philosophy. Krauss just redefines "science" as an all encompassing term that includes subjects like ethics. Fine, but then he's doing bad "science". So if you care about having good reasons to hold philosophical positions, you should care about philosophy.
>>224230
1. Science replacing philosophy is troll-logic. Science is a derivitive of philosophy, not even trolling: Bacon, Descartes, Aristotle, fuck even Thales.
2. Not everyone needs to read philosophy nor should they. Whether you need philosophy depend greatly on who you are and what you are trying to do. I personally think a lot of philosophical education in school is a huge waste of everyone's time. Why the hell doe we need to teach future Target employees about German philosophy? When are they gonna use that? Fuck at least teach them Marcus Aurelius!
>>224271
Isn't this just an argument based on bureaucratisation though?
Science is a process i.e. following the scientific method. What ever you are studying and furthering the development of is science so long as you are following the scientific method. Philosophers claiming - this is my baby, this is my area of study isn't going to stop science treading on its toes, I fail to see how we would have discovered much about the universe based purely on people arguing about it without experimentation and observation.
>>224280
>1. Science replacing philosophy is troll-logic. Science is a derivitive of philosophy, not even trolling: Bacon, Descartes, Aristotle, fuck even Thales.
That's true, but I don't see how science being initially derived from philosophy makes any difference. That is incoherent as a claim.
It's not a perfect anaology but it is not disimilar to the claim of Christians that claim science is all down to Christianity because priests and religious people in general helped create the scientific method.
>>224317
Science used to be called natural philosophy. The first Greek philosophers asked questions about the natural world.
>>224334
I am aware of this. Science replaced natural philosophy.
>>223393
I've actually studied philosophy. It's Kant, Aristotle or Parmenides, trust me.
>>223789
Wittgenstein was a lion. He roared, and people stared in awe.
"If only lions could speak," they said.
And then he died.
>>223393
>away from continental pseudophilosophy
>implying there was any recognizable 'continental-analytic split' at that point
>mfw anti-continentals fail at historical accuracy
>>224317
It deals with different subjects though, Science explains contingent material realities about specific objects and their regularities. Metaphysics, for example, gives us the general structure of reality beyond the mere physical contingencies, it explains the general principles which is foundation that these contingencies rest upon.
Here is a great example, the problem of universals. How do we get general terms and categories, what is the fundamental constitution of our demarcating things into types and categories. Is there something precise, objective, and perfectly present in every example of a type that we speak of ? Do the rocks all have likeness but not one exact property that is essential and defines each one of them ? Is this likeness based on something abstract and objective or is there a spatio-temporal example ? Do we get the categories that things are demarcate by off of nature primarily?, our subjective categorization of things in the world?, or does it stem from our language that we use for pragmatic reasons ?
All these are pre scientific questions, insofar as we need to get our metaphysics straight first in order to know what we are talking about when we use general terms in the sciences.
Look at epistemology, we assume that Science is telling us something about the world because we believe that sensory data relates to something mind external? For what reason to we believe this ? Once you start asking these fundamental questions you've left science behind and have moved on to Philosophy.
Science is about a particular method of gaining knowledge, with specific goals in mind. Science's goals need not be exhaustive of all possible epistemic goals that one holds. Nor do we have any reason to treat the results of science as exhaustive over all of reality. Once someone makes a case for why Science should be our only means to reality they have already entered into a philosophical debate and implicitly admit that their own position is incoherent.
>>223393
Russell was good Philosopher, a Great Mathematician and he is definately worth studying. Like many of the big names in Philosphy they are poor historians of philosophy though and rarely engage with the history of philosophy in a sufficient way.
I of course think that Aristotle,Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Leibniz ( and maybe Avicenna as well) are the best.
Overlord of philosophers coming through, mystics on suicide watch
>>224660
His Introduction to Metaphysics was great t b h.
But I can't get into this guy's system proper, confuses the hell out of me.
>>224660
>the shitposting of a meme is not itself another meme, but shitposting is always the shitposting of a meme
>>223480
>flaws in naked empiricism
nothing wrong with empiricism. if anything, problems arise only when degenerates try to corrupt empiricism with their abstractions like the logical empiricists.
>>225931
Empiricism is only good up to a point.
>>224317
>What ever you are studying and furthering the development of is science so long as you are following the scientific method.
yes and the scientists cannot even say what ways the scientific method is relevant, why do you have scientists at all, why does the scientific method matters.
without philosophy, the scientist is like a hammer salesman telling you that you hammers are great and that you need one that you buy a few hammers without even knowing why you buy them and listen the salesman in the first place
>>224622
>Metaphysics, for example, gives us the general structure of reality beyond the mere physical contingencies, it explains the general principles which is foundation that these contingencies rest upon.
no, there is not one metaphysics, there is only several people qualifying their discourse as metaphysical. metaphysics does not exists.
and these people explain nothing, since they have no idea what to explain means in the first place.
>>224622
>>Science is about a particular method of gaining knowledge, with specific goals in mind.
so far, the sole way to establish a link between whatever fantasy you call knowledge and what the scientists tell you they do is purely ad-hoc. you can only claim with your authority that science brings knowledge, precisely because you have no other means to establish the link knowledge-science, and you do not even know what knowledge-without-science would be.
>>225961
this is what the rationalist believes.
but tell us when does empiricism stop to work
>>224641
Why he is so smug?
>>224660
This !
>writes the worst, most biased overview of philosophy out there
>is respected and widely read
Go away with your pretentious bullshit Russ.
>>225976
Can you argue your position instead of just asserting it? ( though that would be doing Philosophy). Since when are Scientists fully unified on everything ? There is plenty of different variations on theories and interpretations of data that are always in play in the sciences. The fact that science can only give us probabilistic knowledge, since it works on induction, is enough to ground this. No amount of evidence ever proves anything in science, more evidence just makes a stronger case for the probability of a hypothesis being true. There is just as much uncertainty in Science as there is in Philosophy for this reason.
The question of what it means to explain something is a philosophical question in the first place, Philosophers by definition are the ones who one should go to in order to know such a question.
>only claim with your authority that science brings knowledge, precisely because you have no other means to establish the link knowledge-science, and you do not even know what knowledge-without-science would be.
So I can't know that I'm typing this sentence without doing a science experiment about it ? I can't know modus ponnens or modus tollens without doing a science experiment ? I can't know that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon without doing a Science experiment? This position would need some serious argumentation to make it even remotely plausible. And given what the position is you are logically committed to proving it with a science experiment.
So please show me the science experiment that proves all of your assertions.
>>226556
-fails to mention Kirkeegaard
-Gives literally 2 sentences to Heidigger.
-Misinterprets or gives only a shallow understanding of Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer
-Weak understanding of the Pre-socratics. Fails to understand that Thales was important in establishing the philosophical notion of the real vs the appearent world.
-Adds a positivist bias to every philosopher, so much that he outright ignores or dismisses their central ideas if it doesn't conform to his own worldview
The fact that this book is pitched as an introduction to philosopher, also puts him on borderline revisionism.
>>224622
>Here is a great example, the problem of universals. How do we get general terms and categories, what is the fundamental constitution of our demarcating things into types and categories. Is there something precise, objective, and perfectly present in every example of a type that we speak of ? Do the rocks all have likeness but not one exact property that is essential and defines each one of them ? Is this likeness based on something abstract and objective or is there a spatio-temporal example ? Do we get the categories that things are demarcate by off of nature primarily?, our subjective categorization of things in the world?, or does it stem from our language that we use for pragmatic reasons ?
I'm sorry but I see this as fairly meaningless waffle about the meaning of meaning.
We can analyse rocks down to molecular level and come up with all kinds of ways to categorise them.
>Look at epistemology, we assume that Science is telling us something about the world because we believe that sensory data relates to something mind external? For what reason to we believe this ? Once you start asking these fundamental questions you've left science behind and have moved on to Philosophy.
Well for a start if someone chucks a brick at your head you will see the light reflecting off it and dodge it.
>>229888
>Well for a start if someone chucks a brick at your head you will see the light reflecting off it and dodge it.
why can we be certain that because it happened this way in the past, it will continue to happen this way in the future?
A chicken observes that every day the farmer comes to give him food. For 999 days the farmer days this without fail. The chicken uses empiricist to determine this that on the 1,000 day the farmer will give him food again.
On the 1,000th day the farmer kills and eats the chicken.
>>229946
>why can we be certain that because it happened this way in the past, it will continue to happen this way in the future?
Based on pure logic and philosophy you cannot determine anything to be true except "I think therefore I am". Philosophy has no way of answering questions like these, just ways of spending hours and hours and days and years and centuries arguing fruitlessly over them.
The scientific answer is that it produces effective results and being smashed in the face by a brick is going to cause you injury.
>>229990
science doesnt have answers to those questions either. what it does have is a historically effective pragmatism that has been elevated in the minds of many to the sole acceptable way of knowing anything.
>>230001
>science doesnt have answers to those questions either
It produces effective results though.
>what it does have is a historically effective pragmatism that has been elevated in the minds of many to the sole acceptable way of knowing anything.
There isn't an acceptable way of knowing anything other than cogito ergo sum based on philosophy.
>>229990
You can't use the scientific method to answer morality, let alone use it to do analysis of morality itself like Nietzsche did with Genealogy of Morality. Science is a fucking specialized field. For fuck sakes it's like saying accounting has replaced philosophy and anything that cannot be known be the double-book keeping method should be disregarded.
>>229969
Poor chicken, it was unfortunate it was in a farm on it's own and not able to observe the disappearance of the other chickens.
>>230034
>It produces effective results though.
but it cant answer any existential questions with anything but "well, kinda just is".
>There isn't an acceptable way of knowing anything other than cogito ergo sum based on philosophy.
some people even take it so far as to say that you cant convince a rational person of anything.
i dont think either of these approaches is a good general way of thinking.
>>223393
As others have pointed out, Russell wasn't the first in his vein, nor was he the only one at the time doing what he was doing
You should probably learn more about philosophy before declaring one guy to be "the best"
That said, Russell was a pretty cool guy, eh went to prison for his beliefs and didn't afraid of anything.
>>230050
Well that's the problem with entirely Empirical reasoning. We don't observe everything that goes on.
Imagine if the chickens were isolated from each other. There would be no way the chicken could even know there are other chickens to observe. You can't ever even say whether or not you observe everything, if there is an unknown you wouldn't know it's unknown.
That's not to say Empiricism is bunk.
>>230113
What if the chicken determined that it is to be killed on the 1000th day? What is it to do? It's a fucking chicken, and the farmer has total control over it.
What if we determined that the strong force is going to disappear tomorrow. Are we going to prepare?
There is no point in worrying about unknowns of this nature.
>>230046
>You can't use the scientific method to answer morality,
That may or may not be true, but you can't *prove* that based on philosophy and it is an argument for the study of ethics not the study of philosophy as a whole.
>let alone use it to do analysis of morality itself like Nietzsche did with Genealogy of Morality.
Did Nietzsche *prove* his morality was correct though?
>Science is a fucking specialized field.
Anyone using the scientific method for any field is doing science.
>For fuck sakes it's like saying accounting has replaced philosophy and anything that cannot be known be the double-book keeping method should be disregarded.
This is an argument based on bureaucratism. The tools used in accounting can be studied using the scientific method.
>>230313
>Did Nietzsche *prove* his morality was correct though
What morality? He describe how morality is formed. It's not something that can be proven empirically. It's not like we can create two copies of the Roman Empire and make one a control version and one a test version than analyze how they develop their morality. You might as well say Historians cannot prove that humanism caused the Renaissance. Pretty much anything related to studying the past is going to be outside the realm of science.
Fuck let's just throw out the scientific method. You can't prove that works without resorting to Baconian philosophy which cannot be proven scientifically.
>The tools used in accounting can be studied using the scientific method
You can't scientifically test accounting. There is no scientific way to measure how finances should be categorized and sorted. You are talking like a fucking retard. Do you see scientists walking into brokerage firms and saying "I can help you guys!"
Science is actually a relativity specialized field compared to philosophy, which interacts with virtually every other field. Positivism is a defunct.
Is there anything more cancerous than analytic philosophy?
These autistic STEM-rejects should just fuck off to linguistics
>>230676
>What morality? He describe how morality is formed.
He described how in his opinion morality was formed.
>It's not like we can create two copies of the Roman Empire and make one a control version and one a test version than analyze how they develop their morality. You might as well say Historians cannot prove that humanism caused the Renaissance
True, but then again study of history is based on sources and validating those sources is often based on science now. Scientific analysis of ink and paper using chemistry is now commonplace.
>Pretty much anything related to studying the past is going to be outside the realm of science.
Evolution, Paleontology, Geology and Cosmology are outside the realms of science (to give just four examples)? I don't want to insult the only one of the trips I have great respect for but this seems like a nonsense claim on the same level a Young Earth Creationist might make.
Whether the Turin Shroud was genuine used to be an argument for historians until it became one for Chemistry instead.
>Do you see scientists walking into brokerage firms and saying "I can help you guys!"
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_06_08/caredit.a1200064
>Science is actually a relativity specialized field compared to philosophy, which interacts with virtually every other field. Positivism is a defunct.
A plumber does science when he tries out ways to fix a pipe. I'm not sure what Postivism is.
>>223393
Nietzsche-Intelligent, nihilistic, and with a wicked sense of humor.
>>223459
>implying Kant wasn't literally autistic
>implying the German idealists interpreted Kant's will correctly
>>230791
Positivism is the idea that literally everything can be understood mathematically and scientifically. So there wouldn't be any opinions what is 'right' or 'wrong' would be measurable in some way. It would also mean all value judgements could be proven by math or science.
>Evolution, Paleontology, Geology and Cosmology are outside the realms of science (to give just four examples)
You're correct here. I kind of fucked up. What I mean is that certain things really only happen once. Like the Roman Empire or the creation of a Christianity. Science tends to relay on seeing something happen many many times so it can't answer these sorts of questions.
We can know the Roman Empire fell but we can't know why it fell objectivily. We can just have our best historians debate on the exact details.
Likewise understanding stuff like morality, I don't see how it can be done scientifically. Maybe if we get to the point where we can completly map out how the human brain works we can do it. But until we get there we have to make do with philosophical and anthropological conjecture.
I can't *prove* Nietzsche's analysis of morality is correct but it is a very usful lens for understanding other philosophy, human behavior, and history. That's sort of how philosophy is, if you get results with it than it's good philosophy. If you don't get good results it's bad philosophy. Proofs for philosophy tend to relay on rationalizing things and using the natural or historical world as anecdotal evidence. It also helps if it is built on previous philosophy that proved to be useful. In that regard it's very much like social criticism.
Diogenes
>>230899
>would be measurable in some way.
brain states
read sam harris you mong. neuroscience proves that the worst possible misery for everyone is o bjectively wrong.
>>223393
Kek. Logicism is dead and you killed it, Russell; nice try.
>>230944
Neuro-science can measure happiness this is true. However you are making the assumption that happiness is the ultimate goal.
And why is misery necessarily bad?
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" Pain, especially deep pain, is a motivator that can transform people. Look at Batman! This is why Nietzsche's philosophy doesn't put the avoidance of pain and the acquisition of pleasure as the ultimate goals. Another problem is that pleasure and pain might be linked so you can't have one without the other. Think about how video games become both more fun and more painful when the get harder.
This is why I don't take Harris seriously. He starts from the idea that everyone is trying to maximize happiness and minimize pleasure and never bothers justifying it. Why is pain necessarily bad? Why do we view pain and pleasure as opposites instead of two sides of the same coin?
I think we will see wonderful things from neurosciences but it's not going to suddenly make a utopia.
>>230820
>You just kant handle the bants
>>223789
>paying any attention to the early Wittgenstein
>not exclusively studying the Late one
Maximum pleb.
>>230944
>>231009
reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk
>>231009
>Neuro-science can measure happiness this is true.
Wrong
>>230944
>Sam Harris
Opinion discarded
>>225993
well, Mathematics and in particular Computer Science were all developed by the rationalist method of rigorously defining abstract objects with certain axioms and deriving further theorems through them. And you can't do science without those guys, so I guess empiricism is pretty good but it's not the whole deal
>>223393
How can one NOT choose Kant?
what's the difference between science and philosophy and how is philosophy not a science
>>231911
science demands evidence. philosophy demands nothing beyond just having a pulse and being able to write down words on a piece of paper or type them out at a computer. philosophy is not science because merely writing about your feelings and how you want the world to be is not science
>>231911
Well there were originally the same thing. Thales is considered the first philosopher and first scientist. All the other ancient philosophers also did science, Aristotle with his biology for instance.
Eventually Bacon and Descartes layed the philophical foundation that would later lead to the scientific method. This small piece of philosophy is still part of science. It also allowed you the field to become specialized and fall from philosophy. Science thus deals with things that can be proven through repeated experiment. While philosophy continued to handle the problems that could not.
The fields are still somewhat related with epistemology telling science how it needs to operate to generate proof or even how certain it can be of it's proof. Than there are things like philosophy of science which tries to figure out what the purpose and goals of science should be.
>>224622
>Metaphysics, for example
Look at the world you got there.
Meta
Physics
It could be named Meta Discourse and mean exactly the same.
Its not a useful name, and you shouldn't masturbate to the fact the name is terrible.
>>225963
Except we are somewhere between the 30th and 40th generation of modern scientists.
Without Philosophy it doesn't matter, they don't care that they don't know what the hammer does, because hard science has been a solid trade for soon to be 3 centuries now.
>>231009
>Neuro-science
Is a science field 100-300 years away from getting somewhere.
Its currently brake pacing lead field endorsement is that you see if the brain does something.
That isn't very impressive, but its better than nothing.
reminder that even for Aristotle and Plato, what we call science today was NOT done for science's sake. science was a first TOOL to live the contemplative life.
today, science is tool for comfy life and an end in itself, whereas we still do not know whether science leads us to truth and reality.
>>231415
>>well, Mathematics and in particular Computer Science were all developed by the rationalist method of rigorously defining abstract objects with certain axioms and deriving further theorems through them.
indeed, but the various logics that we have today and the lack of agreement on what logic is appropriate to do mathematics shows that these whole claim to reach truth through what they sell as rigorous thinking is a sham. Plus, math itself cannot even answer all mathematical question: for example, we still do not know whether it is appropriate to use the zorn's lemma. math cannot answer this. all we can say is that ''if you accept zorn's lemma, we have such and such theorems, otherwise, we have such and such theorems''.
the eternal question is not whether math, logic, imagination, thoughts give truths, certainty, knowledge, but rather why do we think that they give truth, certainty, knowledge in the first place and why do we need truth, certainty, knowledge in the first place. the question is ''what we want?''
>>231009
>>Neuro-science can measure happiness this is true.
no, neuro-science can measure what they think is measurable happiness. why do you choose to be not rigorous ?
>>231009
>Neuro-science can measure happiness this is true
You cant measure what you can't even define.
>>229990
>Based on pure logic and philosophy you cannot determine anything to be true except "I think therefore I am". Philosophy has no way of answering questions like these, just ways of spending hours and hours and days and years and centuries arguing fruitlessly over them.
the buddhist meditations disprove this
>Roughly Speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing. (Tractatus, 5.5302 and 5.5303)
>Russell's definition of '=' won't do; because according to it one cannot say that two objects have all their properties in common (even if this proposition is never true, it is nevertheless significant).
>>229888
>I'm sorry but I see this as fairly meaningless waffle about the meaning of meaning.
I fail to see how you being anti-intellectual makes a discipline meaningless.
Yes, we can classify rocks according to certain physical properties, to classify them we need to be able to utilize general terms though, which is what the whole problem is about. What do we mean when we do it? and what reality does doing so represent in reality ?
>Well for a start if someone chucks a brick at your head you will see the light reflecting off it and dodge it.
I was asking about the validity of sensory data and how it gets us to reality, you responded by using an example where you assume that reality is getting represented by our sense data.
Come on now.
>>232235
The point of metaphysics comes from Aristotle, the Metaphysics is the "beyond physics", it is the first philosophy that deals with subject matter with ontological priority to the stuff that is dealt with in the physics.
"Meta-Discourse" could easily involve ethics, political philosophy, physics, logic, grammar, etc. Metaphysics at least shows the discipline's relationship to physics, which is the closest other discipline to it.
>>229990
You do realize that the first thing that gets thrown out in the Cartesian Meditations is the empirical sciences right ? You have to be able to believe something without the possibility of it being false for Descartes to consider it as something that we know, hence he fixes upon the cogito ergo sum as the only thing we can have that level of certainty of. Science cannot give you that level of certainty since it deals with physical contingencies and at best can give us highly probably results, since you can't actually prove anything with induction.
For those that do not know "I think therefore I am" only works if
A) A God exists
B) That Good is completly good
C) This God created us and our senses
D) People have knowledge of A&B&C independent of their cultural or upbringing, it's knowledge you are born with. Not derivied from potentially faulty sense data.
If you don't believe me go luck up for the full proof. Descartes realizes there is no way to tell if our sense data is bias because we would have to use bias sense data to affirm it. He reasons that because of A&B&C we can know the God would not create us with faulty senses. And he knows A&B&C are true because of D....(good luck proving point D).
In other words the very foundation that our sense data is accurate is BTFO.
>>225993
When you argue with me (who you can't prove the existence of)
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.
>>232979
Wut? It just means that at the very least SOMETHING is there when doubting your existence.
>>233156
I disagree that happiness is clearly a chemical reaction.
The idea that brain chemistry corresponds to any sort of mental qualia is a psuedoscientific theory.
>>233789
Why the fuck do people circlejerk Plato so much? He doesn't even deserve to be named in the same breath as Aristotle.
What did he ever accomplish? Besides >muh cave analogy
His entire philosophy was mysticism bullshit and his politics were fucking retarded. None of his toughts stood the test of time. Unlike his teacher and student, he didn't influence jackshit and is basically irrelevant. And on top of that, we don't even know how much he just copypasted/stole from Socrates.
gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
>le philosophy is dead meme
Philosophy isn't dead, STEMfags are just trying to proclaim it as dead so they can tout materialism as the one truth of the universe. People have been doing this shit for all time.
>>234094
You're right, it was never alive in the first place. History has always been decided by doing, not by talking and writing
Pic related is the best philosopher alive in the 20th century
>>234105
Kek
>>234094
Not even materialism. Materialism would require actual rigour. These people want to just tout prevailing cultural norms as the one truth of the universe.
>>223393
>life's work got btfo by Godel
>quit logic because of Wittgenstein
If the legacy of Anglo "logic" is to be btfo by German autists who more or less give a worse account of Nietzsche's philosophy
>>224641
My nigga. Deus sive Natura all the way.
>>234066
>What did he ever accomplish?
I think Phaedo more than any other. It's not any one dialogue really, though, it's the entire process of dialogue itself. You have to see Plato's dialogues as a ritual, an initiation. If you read Plato in an analytic way to break down his points and discover his opinions and try to assess where he fits in the history of Western philosophy, etc., you are reading him wrong (or, at least, not on his own terms). The point is to have your mind swept up in the process of the dialogue, to be fully and completely engaged in it. The dialogue begins with the presentation of an idea, then that idea is attacked, a new idea is offered to correct it, etc., all the while your mind is being trained to contemplate ideas fairly without dismissing them out of hand. Then, when the dialogue reaches its peak, your mind reaches a state of aporia (loss, confusion). This is when your mind feels completely blank. It's hard to describe. Your mind loses all perception, you totally forget the world, your surroundings, your self, and are just in the immediate presence of your own mind. This is when you realise that you have a mind and how immanent it is. The danger here is that you will fall into the Hindu trap of believing that you are part of the divine mind that makes up existence, the experience is that powerful. And then the dialogue introduces its best take of the ideal (usually given by Socrates), and your now freed-up mind is able to contemplate the idea as though it were a statue stood right in front of you.
>>233012
>who you can't prove the existence of)
the thing is that I do not need to prove that you exist. this lack of need is what misses the rationalist, contrary to the empiricist who is fine not fantasying about causes, necessity and so on.
>>223480
>Diogenes
Mah Nigga.
>>224317
I'd just like to point out that philosophy of science is still a thing.
>>225993
>when does empiricism stop to work
in mathematics
>>234271
False. I can observe fields pretty easily in my mind.
>>234066
I'd write why you're wrong, but I'll only say that you're full of shit.
>>234275
I'm pretty sure that's a point in favor of rationalism.
>>223393
Despite being commie, existentialism is probably right.
>>234384
>dude free will exists because i say so lmao fuck logic
Into the trash it goes
>>234384
>thatsbullshitmyeyesarefine.magneto
>129 posts
>1 mention of aquinas
what gives, /his/?
>>224194
dawkins knows shit about teology or any philosophy about religion for that matter
>>234384
neuroscience provides a lot of evidence against Sartre's idea of "radical freedom", so yeah i'm not completely convinced. Plus things like mental birth defects e.g. foetal alcohol syndrome make me doubt how accurate his "existence precedes essence" argument is.
>>234483
You don't need neuroscience to disprove Sartre. He's just illogical.
Literally thinks humans create themselves from nothing. He actually thinks you form your own essence as you see fit. Of course, if you ask him how you can form your own essence without having one to begin with, his tiny frog brain would probably explode.
He's the worst charlatan in the history of philosophy. He disgusts me deeply.
For fucks sake, Schopenhauer ended the free will debate ages ago when he showed the problem of infinite regress.
>>234516
Just another item on a long list of things Nietzsche nailed dead on and nobody on here appreciates
Some of the suggestions ITT are...interesting.
The only other guy posted here I could really get behind would be Diogenes.
>>234137
He BTFO his own work you stupid fuck. He compiled and composed Principia Mathematica with Whitehead until he discovered Russell's paradox, then he abandoned the endeavor while Whitehead kept going. It was until Goedel that Whitehead completely gave up.
>>223393
>Who was the greatest philosopher who ever lived?
Socrates.
(I mean if Plato's description is realistic)
Also I believe he was one of the last great / true philosophers, too.
It's a pretty unpopular opinion, but - as a real-life philosopher - he is the ideal philosopher / "free thinker" / "wise man" for me.
>>230236
it could try to escape
>>236447
When Plato gave Socrates's definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man." After this incident, "with broad flat nails" was added to Plato's definition.
>>230676
>Do you see scientists walking into brokerage firms and saying "I can help you guys!"
Confirmed for never having worked in financial services. We use maths and physics guys constantly to model stuff
>>236447
Der Untermensch
>>236326
He found the paradox while working on the Principles of Mathematics, a separate and solo work from Principia. Both Russell and Whitehead stopped with PM at volume three because they stopped caring/were "mentally exhausted". This was in 1913. Goedel didn't come around until the late 20's/early 30's with his incompleteness iirc.
I'm no Russell apologist (I don't even like him) but c'mon now.
>>236684
So this guy spent his whole career trying to prove 1+1=2 and failed?
>>236709
He tried to provide a logical basis for it and failed. So yeah.
Logicism - not even once
>>234770
>keked by newton
>muh complete concepts
at least he btfo malebranche
>>237103
forgot to mention
>so autistic that he sent arnauld a bunch of article titles for critique instead of the actual work
>>237103
>>237173
I wonder who is behind these posts.
The Greek guy who made the allegory of the people in the cave.
He practically created the word 'dialogue', which is used to this day as a political euphemism.
>>237297
wow he created a word, that totally makes him GOAT
Nobody gives a fuck about politics
>>237297
>the Greek guy
Listen to this Pleb!
Epictetus.
This is the guy that taught how to live a happy life no matter what happens. A society that was based on his ideals would be amazingly strong.
Compare him to Nietzsche.
Bertrand Russell's father was a c u c k. El Kekerino Jr. can't even be good, let alone be based.
>>223794
>Implying you can understand Aristotle without Plato
>>237531
Just because most of Aristotle's works was basically BTFOing Plato's nonsense doesn't mean it can't stand on its own
>>231934
>2015
>Thinks philosohpy is just writing about feelings
>>234162
What the fuck is this pasta?
>>237634
Platofags trying to defend their shit tier philosopher so they end up writing huge walls because they don't have simple rebuttals (because they are wrong)
>>237103
That's a nice memes you got.
How is he keked by Newton? The two had some quick exchange about providence, where Newton went borderline heresy just to be contrarian. Which is a shame for Newton.
If you are referencing infinitesimal calculus, no one outside Anglo countries even consider Newton a suitor. If anything, Fermat has a better claim to precedence over Leibniz than Newton.
>publishing a theory that is superior in every way, more clear, more comprehensive, more formal and more general 30 years before Newton
>Somehow there is a controversy
Never trust English historiography.
itt philosophy students try defend their fry cooking degree
>>237849
All humanities are fry cooking degrees
>>237849
>>237901
scienc fuck yea :D
>>232970
who is this?
I feel like championing "science" over philosophy is misguided. Philosophers and scientists are in the same boat, that is, in danger of being replaced by experts that are trained to do one specific thing, perform one specific task for pay.
Universities are becoming glorified trade schools, where Research can only be funded through outside capital (mostly from Corporations).
Both scientists in the traditional sense and philosophers (assuming there's a sharp difference) are obsolete in this model, since they're independent and control what and how they research.
Threads like these are the reason I keep coming back to 4chan. You wouldn't find this shit on Reddit. As a philosophy noob, but lover of knowledge I can't get enough.
Tell me though, beside being such a cynic can someone tell me what was so important about Diogenes?
Also just read the wiki on Wittgenstein. His family was the 2nd richest behind the Rothschilds. Lead an interesting life but was clearly autistic His philosophy seemed a bit complicated for me at the moment. Can someone clue me in?
>>237952
Diogenes was fucking based, that's what's important about him. He took what Socrates was supposed to be to the end. That said, he's probably more mythical than an accurate depiction of how he was.
He would probably be sent to a psych ward and put on meds these days though, which is a testament to the greeks.
>>237974
Yea living in a barrel, and in general being a degenerate. Yet somehow managed to live over 80. Amazed how no one killed him.
What did he take from Socrates? Standing by his beliefs (like how Socrates was killed).
>analytical philosophy
>>237952
>Tell me though, beside being such a cynic can someone tell me what was so important about Diogenes?
He is the grandpa of the stoics.
>>238000
Socrates (according to Plato) was a restless, truth-seeking man who stopped at nothing to discover the true meaning of virtue, he would relentlessly question his contemporaries and dumbfound them.
Yet, it's obvious that he stopped short of something, since he is still shown (again, by Plato ) to settle for incomplete answers, to gather people around him even though they really didn't know the answers to his question either, just stopping short of his (supposed) goal in general
Diogenes can be taken as a more radical version of Socrates. He discovers that society can not answer his questions, therefore he consequently told society to fuck off.
>>237917
Paulo Freire, a pedagogical philosopher from Brazil.[spoiler]hue[/spoiler]
>>238057
Yeah we spent a lot of time in my philosophy class talking about Socrates and justice. Never got an answer.
>>238070
Always a great idea to follow the ideas of the guy that influenced Brazilian education so much.
>>238078
Also American education, but I feel his influence isn't as felt here as I would like it to be.
>>238073
To be fair, there's no answer to this question to this day other than "it's subjective.
>>238086
Why? Do you really hate America that much?
>>238099
Ya that seems to be the answer to a lot of things with philosophy. I understand the value of the discipline, but a lot is wasted on stupid things.
>>238101
ebin
One of the best threads I've come across tbqh. This board is quickly becoming my favourite. Too bad I have not much to contribute with, I will read more.
>>238113
It's not that easy. A lot of philosophical approaches (or schools, if you like) offer very convincing (albeit not perfect, but what is?) systems to understand the world by. Generally, and there would be people that would dispute this, in the End most questions arrive at some kind of absolutely subjective judgement, apart from the fact that you exist etc.
Hegel.
The most influential philosopher of all time is without a doubt Aristotle. If that was the question.
Jim Lahey
>>223393
>Who was the greatest philosopher who ever lived?
yourself
#deep
>>238139
Agreed. It's like the best elements of /pol/ and /k/ all rolled into one. Major props to whoever created this.
>>238013
>trains are literally dicks
Whose the worst famous philosopher?
>>238385
Literally Korzybski
Even got his own little shitty cult.
>>238385
Sartre by far
>>238377
epic
>>238396
>Korzybski
>He argued that human knowledge of the world is limited both by the human nervous system and the languages humans have developed, and thus no one can have direct access to reality, given that the most we can know is that which is filtered through the brain's responses to reality.
Wow is he the Brendan Fraser of philosophers?
>>223480
Wittgenstein is definitely up there.
Question away. I've read the PI, On Certainty, Zettel, a compilation of R. Rees on his views on psychology, aesthetics and religion, and some of the Brown and Blue books.
Couldn't get halfway throught the TLP though.
>>238514
What was so brilliant about Wittgenstein?
>>238385
Simone de Beauvoir
>>237849
>m-muh jobs!
Get a load of this fag
>>238579
His method of doing philosophy, and his insight that philosophy isn't discovering things about the world but untangling the messy conceptual framework we've created for understanding it.
Being concise.
>>231424
Seriously. Muh Copernican Turn.
>>238640
He was so fucking rich but decided to live like a poor person. Fucking autism....
>>238674
Yeah he was disgustingly autistic, reading his life actually makes me mad
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
>here are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress without which human society would stand still or retrogress.
Was he the genius of our time? The king of reason and HARD philosophy instead of the posturing bullshit of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard?
>>238684
Have you read Kierkegaard? I can't speak to Nietzsche because I haven't read more than a couple excerpts of his stuff, but Kierkegaard isn't posturing bullshit. Read Fear and Trembling to start, then try Either/Or.
>>238674
Nope.
>>238705
Is it falsifiable?
>>238684
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
C U C K
U
C
K
>>238721
Popper and Wittgenstein almost became violent with each other at Cambridge in the 1940's, funny you bring him up.
I can't answer whether "Kierkegaard is falsifiable," but if you don't begin an endeavour with an open mind you're unlikely to gain anything from it. I can tell you that Kierkegaard is fertile, and at the very least, enjoyable.
>>238684
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>>238746
He might be interesting in a frivolous sense, but Russel's teapot rules him out from being a serious thinker.
>>238684
>was ruined
It is the natural instinct of man to fight for the legitimacy of his children. It "was ruined" evolutionarily, not culturally.
>>238708
He was extremely autistic. If he didn't like what the conversation he would turn his back to you and start humming or some shit. Yet surprisingly he was a successful officer in WW1.
>>238794
Animals don't have paternity tests
>>238795
I was mostly referring to the implication that his asceticism was symptomatic of his "autism," which I disagree with. He was very eccentric, sure, but I tend to think he was just a goddamn genius and his eccentricities increase his personal appeal. That cultish atmosphere that developed around him at Cambridge and whatever.
>>238791
Nope.
>>238837
'Fraid so. All philosophy that references God was BTFO by Russell.
>>238863
Nope.
Anyway, there's value in Kierkegaard independent of any theological aspect of his work.
>>237297
As the linguistic turn has shown us, discourse is one of the most underrated aspects of life. By changing and innovating our discourses we change the way we see and think about the world. A discourse as simple as a dialogue is more important than you assume.
>>238863
>All philosophy that references God was BTFO by Russell.
spinoza_shiggydiggy.jpg
>>239058
Spinoza was a hacked that salvaged God by defining him as something material.
>what if, like, God = matter! whoa!
>>239082
dont shittalk my philosophu
>>239082
>russelkek's inbred islander brain gets blown up by thoughts that go beyond his autistic sterile abstractions once again
Who was the most autistic philosopher?
>>239236
Wittgenstein, as we just discussed
>>239265
This is philosophy, there's gotta be someone more autistic than him.
>>239336
Wittgenstein is pretty much the only one that is generally accepted as likely to have been legit assburger
Some of the stunts he pulled in his private life, and the shit he wrote make it pretty obvious that he was massively autismo - Just read up on when he designed a house for his sister.
>>237952
>You wouldn't find this shit on Reddit
lmao yes you would. Literally go on r/askphilosophy or one of the more niche subreddits dedicated to specific branches of philosophy and the level of discourse is lightyears above anything in this thread.
For one you don't get irrelevant STEM anti-intellectual shitposters like these faggots >>237849
>>237901, and on a sub like r/askphilosophy flairs dictate a users level of expertise in a particular subject (undergrad, postgrad, professional). If you're coming to this board for learns rather than keks you're doing it wrong.
>>239383
Ebin, I love leddit too! :D
>>239359
Oh yeah the shit with the ceiling, spending a year designing the door hinges. It's amazes me how much put people up with his shit. I think he had the luck that autism wasn't known so people could still consider him human. Today he would have been insta diagnosed with autism, and the dehumanizing element of that, plus with how people would treat him differently since they knew he had a mental disability, he might of ended up killing himself like his brothers. People back then were just called quirky or eccentric, not labeled with a mental disorder like they do today. It's so fucking dehumanizing, I don't think the psychiatrist community realizes they are doing more than good with all the labels. Like I'll see people online and their forum name will be autisticadam. It becomes their fucking identity.
>>239383
Yeah but you might get more intelligent discourse on Reddit, but everyone has their reputation to defend due to usernames and karma. People hold back. You just don't get the rawness that you'd get an anonymous board.
Wittgenstein was known for being almost unnaturally charismatic, or at least to the extent that students mimicked his style of dress and the like. He was also said to have destroyed folks abilities of abstract thought, understandably enough, given his views. Wittgenstein also hit kids, though, because he was a motherfucker. Having coined 'meaning as use' though, which is the key to seeing through so much semantic bullshit, in so much second-rate philosophy and other shit, you have to admit he was a bit of genius. At least, considered along with the rest of his stuff.
>>239383
claiming that someone is being anti-intellectual by questioning the value of philosophy is like claiming a doctor is anti-healing by questioning the value of homeopathy
>>239494
>Having coined 'meaning as use' though
Oh he was the first one? I just started the Investigation and this paragraph blew my mind proper.
>>239494
I thought it was normal to hit kids back then. It's funny the only time he really used his families wealth which he so despised was to get him out of trouble when he hit that sick kid so hard the he collapsed.
>>239428
True even Hitler was autistic. I wonder how things would have turned out differently if he got labeled that by a doctor in his younger years. Likely a blow to his ego, and he wouldn't of been able to join the Bavarian regiment in WW1 because he was mentally disabled. Also Hitler and Wittgenstein likely crossed paths in elementary school.
>>239590
He felt really bad about it later on if I recall properly.
For curiosity's sake
http://strawpoll.me/6018863
http://strawpoll.me/6018878
>>239520
Contributing nothing to the discussion via one sentence quips about how irrelevant philosophy and the humanities are on a board dedicated to both of those subjects - could you please explain how this is anything but anti-intellectual
>>239449
This doesn't really apply to subjects like philosophy or science though where you're standing on the shoulders of giants more than anything. If you've got a /hot/ philosophy onion that you think you'd get flak for on reddit because of the up/downvote culture chances are it's already been discussed/refuted/etc in great detail. Anonymity work well with arts boards because it prevents homogeneity of taste/opinion (well, to some extent)
>You just don't get the rawness that you'd get an anonymous board.
made my laugh
>>239401
damn
>>239615
Yeah 10 years later he came back to apologize, but that kid had died from hemophilia.
>>239643
no, just philosophy. Parts of the humanities are relevant. When philosophy has any relevancy it breaks becomes a field.
>>238684
I'm not argueing for Nietzsche, I do that enough already. But I'll be frank. Nietzsche's influence is huge like it's ridiculous. The more you get into recent philosophy the more you see that the only way you are going to say anything relevant is to stand on Nietzsche's shoulders. Literally every single 20th or 21st century philosopher except for Wittegenstein that I plan to read acknowledges Nietzsche as one of their influences.
Foucault's entire career was spent doing nothing but borrowing Nietzsche's power concept and applying his genealogy method to modern society. He also pretty much redefined the entire way we viewed philosophies of the past. Genealogy, Twilight of the Idols, etc all for a completely different understanding of pretty much the entire field's development.
That isn't to say there are not other guys that are massively influential like Aristotle or Hegel (changes are if Nietzsche isn't releveant one of those two guys will be). Nor am I saying there isn't a place for refuting Nietzsche's ideas. Saying he had no significance is nutty.
I don't really so much importance in Russel; From what I understand his math philosophy (who the fuck wants to read that?) ended in failure. His history of book is far too biased to be a beginners guide, I feel sorry for the person that uses it as a reference guide. He has some criticism of Christianity...which isn't exactly ground breaking stuff. By the time he was around the field had pretty much dropped the notion of God as being relevant, minus Spinoza of course.
>>239643
I've never been on the philosophy board for Reddit but just based on the subject matter I imagine the egos are off the chart.
>>239643
Nobody said philosophy was irrelevant, but it's a fact that it doesn't land you any jobs (as do all other humanities). The fact that you're still butthurt about this hours later is saying something.
>>239733
>it's a fact that it doesn't land you any jobs
but it's not
>>239684
Yep, Russel, like all anglo tards and their whole MUH LOGIC shit got BTFO extensively already by other philosophers, and the only ones who still cling to them are retarded STEM reject Sam Harris worshippers who want to feel like they are doing science.
All of this has already been said ITT though.
>>223393
Only one true answer: Plato. Her first book on nihilism, On Truth and Lies, is the greatest piece of philosophy.
>>239733
when will this meme end
>>239797
Even their foreveralone was run by a feminist who would ban the shit outta anyone who said anything negative about women. These were 25-30 year old kissless virgins on the verge of suicide, yet if even so much as slightly blamed women for their situation they got the ban hammer. I'm sure it led to some guys committing suicide. Reddit, especially some of the power users or mods are ego tripping assholes.
>>239953
You'll have sex eventually. Just try not to act like a pitiful loser, and some woman or another will take a shine to you.
>>239953
>comparing r/foreveralone to specialist philosophy subs
wew
e
w
>>239953
I got banned from their IRC channel for trying to make conversation and I apparently stole the admins thunder so he banned me. Message said "Chad in disguise burn in hell". I'm a 36 yr old virgin....
I never understood the concept of "free will" in philosophy, it just sounds like a feel good concept that doesn't seem to make any sense when truly examined.
Under the assumption that the world is real, basic laws of logic apply to it, and the brain is in fact the mind, The mind does everything as a reaction to internal and external stimuli, and routine functions it does everyday and such like breathe. At any given moment, the brain has to figure out what to do. And then the action is performed. The question people ask is that if you did the exact same situation, would the brain choose something different? But that doesn't seem to be a question about "free will", that seems to be asking if the universe is deterministic or not. If it's deterministic, free will obviously cannot exist. But if it's nondeterministic, is that really free will? It's more like the brain's thought process is randomized at any given moment, and the decision just varies pretty much because of luck. That just doesn't sound like what people traditional mean when they say "free will".
In my opinion, the concept of Free Will in philosophy is an attempt to justify treating people a certain way because of their choices, because they could have chose differently.
>>240210
I actually think it's an over-rated concept. It's brought up both in school as a debate topic and among people because it's a topic where you don't need any special background to discuss it. But it isn't the most important question in philosophy, it's just one of the easiest to discuss.
It has importance in ethics, especially relate to punishment. If someone was destined to murder to someone than you have a very different situation than if they choose to do it. It tends to come up once you construct metaphysical world views that try to explain all phenomena, if you can explain everything than the free will problem gets explained as a side effect. It's extra important in religion that deals with rewards and punishments for behavior. To my knowledge it didn't even become a really big issue until Christianity was wide-spread, you can imagine how important it would be to prove that you did indeed choose to sin or not sin.
>>240313
Not that anon, but I'm more partial to the approach that Stoicism and Spinoza take on the matter.
That is, we're in a causally determined world, but by increasing our understanding of reality we can sort of wiggle a lit bit of free action.
>>223393
Surprised Derrida hasn't been mentioned t.b.h. Deconstruction is one of the greatest ideas of our time
>>236638
>to model stuff
and models do not lead to truth
>>238684
>>Was he the genius of our time? The king of reason and HARD philosophy instead of the posturing bullshit of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard?
he was what dawkins is today, a buffoon
Diogenes
>>239236
[spoiler](you)[/spoiler]
