>be me cs major
>meet philosophy major
>she tells me philosophy is very important
>ask her what important contributions philosophy has made to society the last 50 years
>she's visibly shaking
>>318027
How do you live your life? By some rules, no doubt, respecting some ideals.
You're welcome.
>>318033
Lots of people have preconceived ideals. You don't need philosophy for that.
>>318037
Ideals aren't philosophy?
>>318027
It's been a bit slow for the last 50 years, but if you look at it from the beginning, it has contributed to the world the scientific method, logic, ethics, political theory, laws and almost every science except math.
>>318037
It is the domain of philosophy, and they are influenced by philosophy even if you yourself may not be learned in that area (the effect on society).
>pragmatic definition of importance
>bias towards the present
>dependency on societies approval
>historical ignorance
Did you not learn how to work through your proofs in logic101? Start over.
>>318046
I agree. However, what is important to know is learnable from minoring in the subject at most. Everyone should read some epistemology and logic. However, most people majoring in philosophy are contributing little of importance.
>>318027
Just wait for the neo thomist revolution that will solve the "hard problem of consciousness."
>>318043
>>318043
Philosophy is dead because you can't do anything with ideals anymore. Death of God to death of author to death of meaning.
It is in a homeostasis basically.
>Philosophy will not regain its proper status until the gradual elaboration of categorial schemes, definitely stated at each stage of progress, is recognized as its proper objective. There may be rival schemes, inconsistent among themselves; each with its own merits and its own failures. It will then be the purpose of research to conciliate the differences. Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities.
—Alfred North Whitehead, 1929
>>318027
Nice one autist.
>>318027
Philosophy plays an important role in machine learning and artificial intelligence.
>>318080
You mean metaethics? That's true.
AI depends on cogsci which is very far from philosophy of mind.
>>318068
But it's a non-problem though. It's only formulated that way so philosophy can assign a teleology to it.
>mfw AI will render math obsolete in the same way science rendered philosophy obsolete
It's for swooing girls.
>>318101
>>318067
You would be wrong there.
Philosophy is essential in challenging the values you were taught while growing up. Is your worldview contradictory to itself? Is it wrong altogether? Perhaps, but you need philosophy to answer that. It changes the way you think, act, live. For that it is important. And seriously underrated.
Also, philosophy majors could contribute a lot if they wrote some philosophy. But they don't, and that is unfortunate.
>>318101
Have you ever heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem?
Philosophy has been relegated to simply helping people frame life as opposed to discovering what is real. Making that distinction may help you diminish your disdain for the field.
>>318114
But you are predisposed to believing in philosophy because of confirmation bias. If you think logically philosophy is of little to no importance among regular people.
>>318027
sadly the effects of philosophy on society over the laast 50 years have been largly negative. philosophy determines what is taugh in schools and how it is taught, likewise it determines what is portrayed in media and how it is portrayed. philosophy goes to influence legislators, judges, juries and advocates. The thing is philosophy is to tough for most of the population to digest, they simply lack the free time, background education, and inclination to pursue it. so philosophy is parsed and interpreted by the "intellectual class" which is largely made up of educators, media and policy people. thus the majority of the population sees the effect of changing trends in philosophy at a distance largely without understanding the source. over the last 50 years the prevailing trend has been toward a philosophy of universl inclusion. in Metaphysics this was largely following the trend of Gutierrez and an orientation of christianity towards a subaltern perspective. in ethics Adorno, Marcuse and Foucault headed the post-modernist drive toward a pluralist society. lending credence to the validity of postions which were deemed fringe at best in the previous 50 years these philosophers brought secular pluralism into a position of dominance. within the historiographic field this can be seen with the rise of the diversity school and the shift away from the consensus model which dominated historical writing for the first half of the 20th century.
so philosophy has actually resulted in a major shift in attitudes over the last 50 years, at least within the context of the western first world nations. and lest you think i put the cart before the horse i am well aware that many of the movements for tolerance and indeed pluralism have antecedents far before the last 50 years, i refer merely to their acceptance of these movements into a mainstream academic and media zeitgeist
>>318129
there are many things that are not important to the common man and yet still very important to humanity
>>318069
I don't understand. You still form some notion of what you consider ideal in your life and then try to become closer to that ideal. How is that not useful?
>>318124
This is how you spot a pleb. Godel's theorems only apply to simple logics systems.
Much of the work in AI relates to logics stronger than first-order logic, with which people hoped to show both the consistency and categoricity of mathematical theories.
So basically AI will transcend the boundaries of human cognition.
>>318144
but philosophy is not one of them. You are just as deluded as those who blindly believe in God.
>>318129
>predisposed to believing in philosophy because of confirmation bias
You realise "believing in philosophy" is equivalent to saying "believing in science" right? Perhaps worse because, while there is a lot of scientific consensus, there is very little consensus in philosophy
Philosophy means very little to most people because it goes over their heads. You have to be able to think to do it. That's why scientists especially hate it; cause they like to think they're super smart and can't understand basic concepts such as what is to be human. They can read books that talk about dna and memorise it though. But if those books made them question what dna was they wouldn't like it anymore
>>318153
>with which people hoped to show both the consistency and categoricity of mathematical theories
Good luck
>>318162
>but philosophy is not one of them.
Why not?
>>318165
>But if those books made them question what dna was they wouldn't like it anymore
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. Scientists spent decades trying to find out what DNA is. And they did. Objectively.
>>318165
No. Because words have meanings and meaning is dead(Wittgenstein, Derrida). Philosophy is basically a timeless circlejerk. Only disciplines that are based on formal languages can be useful.
>>318129
No confirmation bias saves a self-contradictory worldview. You also overplay the importance of confirmation bias - you start learning philosophy because you want to see how others thought, what values they held dear. When faced with such plethora of different systems and starting points, the values you were brought up with fade and break. They are not universal. And then you start to build a new system to call yours, influenced by the thinkers you read. It makes all the change in the world - it makes you a different person. By extension, it also influences those unaware of it, as it seeps into your views on morality, the way you act etc. That's hardly insignificant and not worthy of study.
Also, it makes for some bitching memes.
>git despooked fgt
After Descartes there's really nothing useful left to say in philosophy anymore.
>>318184
>Wittgenstein
you do realize he recanted that position and admitted human communication of real meaning is possible predicated on shared context...right?
>>318187
>That's hardly insignificant and not worthy of study.
Yeah, it comes in mighty handy whenever I happen to find myself at a train track, if I actually gave a fuck who it ran over
>>318195
>this is how you spot someone who knows nothing of philosophy
>>318181
objectively being the key word
they didn't spend decades deciding whether dna mattered to mind, they spent decades figuring out exactly what it physically did
>>318205
>abortion
>state killing
>euthenasia
>human rights violations
>child labour
>ethics of AI
>general disagreement
Yeah these are subjects that will never come up so we don't to build any sort of base to understand them with
>>318205
you're right, we should only focus on the things absolutely necessary to daily life. Why teach geography? Why teach history? Why teach any science, for that matter? All you need to know how to do is eat, shit, and turn on the TV!
>>318197
>>318197
>each user of a word could mean something different by it, having a different feeling, and communication would be difficult if not impossible.
Philosophy in particular is based on fucked up re-re-re-re-re-reinterpretation of prior works iteratively. It's based on shared historical context the philosophers see fit(Foucault's genealogical discourse) rather than in formal language.
>CS major
>The lowest tier of practical application of mathematics within science
>Thinking he has the right to brag
Be humble, you're actively seeking to make your own degree worthless
>>318209
They are working on it faggot. Better believe in scientific methods than some oodoo metaphysics. What are you smoking must be pretty good.
>>318270
>which are objective studies of real things rather than a bunch of people arguing for all eternity about abstract ideas.
Utterly irrelevant as they have no bearing on your daily life. You, just like every other uneducated pleb, has no need to know of something so trivial as the capital of fucking France in order to watch MTV all day and get obese, so why bother? Best to leave the learning and thinking to the smart people, after all. There's zero consequences for an utterly uneducated populace that only focuses on what's immediately in front of them!
>>318270
Good for you, I guess you don't need philosophy.
But given that all these issues are directly addressed by it, and they are essential to society, calling philosophy unimportant or pointless is downright idiocy.
Also, "a bunch of people arguing for all eternity about abstract ideas" shows that you really know nothing about that which you complain about.
I agree OP. Philosophy is pointless. It's just a bunch of retards discussing the meaning of meaning.
>>318252
I'm a symbolic systems major at Stanford. I don't see why CS is low tier since it's meta-mathematics.
>>318306
It's not applied mathematics?
>>318271
>They are working on it
bullshit
they'll care literally only if they discover a correlation between certain dna strings and inherent thoughts
but science doesn't give a shit about anything that needs to be interpreted. ask a scientist the meaning of life and they'll tell you about evolution and how the only meaning is sex and reproduction
they can't think outside of what's written in a text book or recorded empirically
you know there were some scientists who expected to find morality in the large hadron collider? they are literally that fucking stupid
>ethics is not philosophy
I'm serious. Ethics should be studied with game theory and all that since traditional ethics(good or bad) is an aesthetic choice(beautiful or ugly).
>"do something"
>"be useful"
Why?
>>318331
Is mathematical logic applied mathematics? Is everything math???? HURR DURR MUH PHILOSOPHY
>>318335
yeah that'd be great if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of people are ethical realists or relatvists
Which is why meta ethics as a philosophy subject has to exist. Maybe in a hundred years we won't need to discuss ethics in philosophy anymore but until then
Anglos in general have a huge misconception of what philosophy is.
They think analytic philosophy is real philosophy.
>>318302
But there is no meaing of meaning son
>>318357
>"We may note one peculiar feature of philosophy. If someone asks the question what is mathematics, we can give him a dictionary definition, let us say the science of number, for the sake of argument. As far as it goes this is an uncontroversial statement... Definitions may be given in this way of any field where a body of definite knowledge exists. But philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy."[31]
—Bertrand Russell, The Wisdom of the West, p.7
>>318352
Ethics doesn't exist. There you go.
Because /lit/ and /his/ are fucking stupid. /sci/ is way more intelligent.
>>318080
Not really.
>>318165
>if it made them question what DNA is they wouldn't like it.
But we've already determined that though. Try again.
>>318394
but so many people think it does that the subject needs to be studied just to show them that it doesn't
by making the blanket statement that ethics (or morality) doesn't exist, you're literally contradicting every major religion which says there is a way you should live your life
people are also idiots and so if they found out morality didn't exist, most of them would interpret that as it's fine to murder, steal and act like a dickhead
>>318386
Philosophy is the search for the unity of knowledge in the unity of consciousness.and vise versa.
It's love for love of wisdom.
Analytic philosophy is only linguistic tricks.
>>318421
>love of wisdom
Fixed.
>>318412
>but so many people think it does that the subject needs to be studied just to show them that it doesn't
Not that many people are interested in disproving the existence of ethics. More people want to jump on the policymaker loan debt moneyrape bandwagon
>>318427
>I'm sorry you have a 3rd grade reading comprehension
I'm sorry you ARE a 3rd grader and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.
>>318209
>what it means to the mind
Oh you mean molecule that constitutes everything about our very being.
Sorry, had no idea that had no effect on the mind.
>>318421
>Analytic philosophy is only linguistic tricks.
>>318446
Yes, it is, and the poor structure of english language explain why you love it so much.
>>318445
>tries to make an a sarcastically obvious point about dna and minds
>ignores the fact that the mind is literally completely still not understood at all by science and that mind body causation problem is no closer to being understood today than it was 2000 years ago
know how i know you're an idiot?
>>318434
true
it's the meta-ethicists task to show them why they're being idiots
>>318427
"proving your point"
I said you as in you as a person, not in the general sense. Just because something doesn't interest you doesn't make it insignificant.
>>318462
'arguments' is the keyword
since its just opinion vs opinion in a hostile setting obviously nobody is going to change their mind and just fling shit until the thread 404s
>>318537
fuck i miss the old days. lesswrong here I come
>>318068
There is no hard problem to solve. Anyone who even thinks there's a problem of consciousness is a neo-cartesian fucktard
>>318335
There, you proved importance of philosophy all by yourself. You can detect and eliminate stupid shit like your idea.
>>318421
>Philosophy is the search for the unity of knowledge in the unity of consciousness.and vise versa.
This sentence is meaningless and it's funny that you accuse analytic philosophy of linguistic tricks in the same post.
>>318027
>be me philosophy major
>meet cs major
>ask him why he chose to be a cs major
>"i want to make video games, i will produce the best resident evil that have ever existed"
>i gave him the proper framework of computer science
>tell him it's not really about video games
>he's visibly shaking
>>318802
Phiosophy is not about sentences, it's about reality.
And it's full of meaning, you maybe just don't understand it.
>>318165
Schrodinger literally understood what DNA was before DNA was even found.
>>318822
Nice meme :^)
Also
>not dual majoring in math and cs to do big data with 300k starting
>>318822
>I try to tell him about the meaning of meaning of meaning about video games based on some waffle I heard in philosophy class
>he's visibly shaking his head
>Med student
>Don't study at all because piss easy watered down chemistry and physics
>Get all the respect of my peers and family
>Get to grope corpses of cute girls
>Get laid easy despite being a sperg
Honestly if I couldnt be a med student I would blow my brains out,there is literally nothing else in life,you either study to become a burger flipper,a code monkey or permavirgin office kek
I'm too pampered to do actual work and too narcicistic not to have the power of life and death over people and acting like a smug cunt knowitall.
There's no truth in science, since truth is final and eternal. Scientific "truth" is tentative. It's subject to change and, thus, not truth at all.
>>319002
There's no truth anywhere though. Reality is a social construction and "the truth" is as much of a social construct as anything else.
>>318825
more bullshit sophistry, you aren't saying anything.
You're literally using cheap linguistic tricks
>>318955
>Be med student
>Study all the time
>No respect from peers because they're all too narcissistic
>Grope disgusting old people corpses
>Don't get laid because I'm a sperg
I must be doing something wrong.
>>318955
>not being a call centre worker
Dude do you even do an easy job while being surrounded by hot young women all day? I bet you think material wealth is somehow worthwhile enough to have to view some old guy's diseased arsehole for a living.
>>318027
>be me philosophy major
>meet cs major
>except not because the cs major is sitting on the floor in the corner of the room ripping zits off his face and eating them plus he smells terrible
>>318955
>studying 7 years
Lmao, enjoy picking the right medicine for 100 year old near-death hags for the rest of your life.
>>319108
i work at a call center and its full of unattractive middle aged black women
>>319134
You work at the wrong call centre, anon.
![zb35yRk[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/DEd4Baf.png "zb35yRk[1].png")
>>318027
>>318162
Oh, Christ, he's going after religion now.
If you get this upset every time you sperg out in front of a liberal arts chick, you'll have a heart-attack before 40.
I feel Philosophy is holding itself back not only by modernity and science but by the enormous academically incestuous tumor that is Leftism/Social Justice/Marxism/Identity Politics. The entire "Science Wars" debacle is proof enough of the toxicity of this phenomenon.
It's one thing for physics and biology to bring new ideas and hurdles to philosophy, but these should be complimenting the practice of it, not hindering it. Imagine how joyous Plato would have been able to TEST HIS IDEAS or to have hard numerical data supporting or falsifying them. How much of the ancient word games could be solved if only someone had observed how the brain works, or taken a survey, or observed a given phenomenon? For thousands of years people have put forth conjectures that can be dismissed by "o yah wise guy? prove it! XDDD", but now we actually CAN prove it. The fact that our brain's are made of cells and atoms should be making academics pour over Buddhist texts.
Instead we have people who have had nothing but Marx and friends poured into their ears since their first day of undergrad spitting out more of, you guessed it, Marx and friends.
The fact that we have "academics" saying biology is pseudoscience because it contradicts Marx or physics is bunk because as it turns out value isn't an objective and intrinsic property of matter isn't the point. The ideology could be Nazism, Libertarianism, Monarchism, whatever. The point is "philosophy" is synonymous with the product of academic incest, and until it breaks free of this it will be little more than toxic navel gazing.
The degradation of the study of classics is symptomatic of the overall degradation of our education system in general.
It used to be that an emphasis was placed in universities on an understanding of history, and of the ancient debates that form the foundation of our modern society. The better your understanding of the past, it was thought, the better your understanding of the present would be. Under this way of thinking, western civilization was built and maintained, using governmental and economic systems with their roots 2000 years in the past.
This has all changed in the past century. Our focus myopically shifted to the here and now, with any study of history mocked as "irrelevant." The result has been that university is now seen exclusively as a pathway to employment. It fulfills this function well enough, but now graduates are too specialized to comment on general issues with anything approaching wisdom.
Those who favor the practical realities of the world study STEM fields and ignore everything else, but the humanities have not been spared from this trend either. Because those studying them now do so because they want to commit their entire life to them, it has become necessary to invent practical uses where previously none existed. So humanities has splintered into many separate "studies," which teach that something is wrong in the world, that human nature can somehow change, and that it is their job to do it, no matter how many traditions must be upended.
Thus the study of classics perishes, and the result is an ever-increasing tide of SJWs, and an inexcusable acceptance of Marxism. Majoring in humanities is stupid, but they should never be ignored.
>>319270
I agree wholeheartedly with this, particularly that university has come to be viewed as simply a series of entry examinations for the workforce.
I had a guy on /biz/ tell me that an English-speaker learning a language was pointless, because you'd never know if the job you got would require that specific language. I had another person IRL tell me that he couldn't take his housemates seriously because they studied drama, whilst he was a biologist. I genuinely, in all serious, don't understand how these people continue to get through the day whilst being so closed off to the world.
>>318027
Even if philosophy hasn't contributed to society, it's entertaining, like literature is
>CS major
You fags are becoming the new liberal arts degree of engineering degrees.
>>318027
Believing that the value of philosophy comes from some net gain it gives to a society who engages in it is itself a philosophical belief ( pragmatism)- one that its adherents never defend. Philosophy's benefit to society is that it gives the society philosophy. It is intrinsically valuable in itself. We should be asking a different question: what has society done for philosophy in the last 50 years ?
>he fell for the STEM meme
>>318270
Christ aren't you such a dedicated little philistine. Please feel free to never question anything and continue to just pass off your inability for critical thought as a rebellious sense of apathy. It's not like science ever requires someone to have a curious and questioning mindset.
>>319387
>what has society done for philosophy in the last 50 years ?
embraced post-modernist thought.
>>318270
>I don't give a fuck about these issues, they're outside my control anyway
History is molded by those who do.
Willing ignorance of anything will never be admirable.
>>319427
>mfw posthumanism
>>318027
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend
>>318027
cs major here as well
philosophy is incredibly important to the advancement of a society, even more the well-being of a culture.
your entire outlook on life and I'm assuming much of your moral code IS philosophy
>>318332
>ask a scientist the meaning of life and they'll tell you about evolution and how the only meaning is sex and reproduction
Enlighten us
There's no meaning to life
>>318270
>I don't give a fuck about these issues, they're outside my control anyway
For fucks sake, you are really stupid
>CS major
>The lowest tier of practical application of mathematics within science
Wrong. It's the second best.
>>320076
>application of mathematics
>>318386
>If someone asks the question what is mathematics, we can give him a dictionary definition
But any definition of mathematics is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude.
>>319270
>Under this way of thinking, western civilization was built and maintained, using governmental and economic systems with their roots 2000 years in the past.
And how great did it work! (sarcasm)
We are literally living at the best point in human history. So fuck them.
>>318027
you should close your .net IDE, and open a book sometimes.
>>320139
The idea that we have only become a worthwhile society in the past 70 years is frankly really stupid and could only come from someone relatively uneducated in history. I would be disturbed if such a way of thinking became mainstream, because it could lead to a lot of harmful changes that would cause us to slip into the same mistakes that our ancestors did.
Our economic and political systems are brilliant, and they all have their roots in classical liberalism. If you can't see the value of understanding the underlying philosophy behind the structure of our society then arguing this with you will be pointless. Of course if you think that I don't know why you're on this board.
>>320189
>The idea that we have only become a worthwhile society in the past 70 years is frankly really stupid and could only come from someone relatively uneducated in history
I only said we were at our best. Do you really think there was a better time for human living than this one?
>If you can't see the value of understanding the underlying philosophy behind the structure of our society then arguing this with you will be pointless
You missed my point. I don't even believe that.
>>320189
Values are just social constructs.
>>320211
>I only said we were at our best. Do you really think there was a better time for human living than this one?
There was only one time in western history in which it would have been better to live earlier, and coincidentally it was the one period in which people stopped reading the classics.
That's not meant as an actual argument, but the point is that we've been steadily progressing for a long time and philosophy has been a big part of it. Each generation has been acutely aware of what worked in the past and what has not. If we lose that I suspect it will be to our detriment.
>You missed my point. I don't even believe that.
Apologies.
>>320243
>There was only one time in western history in which it would have been better to live earlier, and coincidentally it was the one period in which people stopped reading the classics.
So, the present time?
Sure, I agree with that. But not with this
>western civilization was built and maintained, using governmental and economic systems with their roots 2000 years in the past
>If we lose that I suspect it will be to our detriment.
Not necessarily. We could develop a new philosophy based on our current world-view.
Also, no generation has ever been aware of their past, only a small group of it, and while that group might be proportionally lower now, it won't ever cease to exist.
>>320211
>Do you really think there was a better time for human living than this one?
I dont know because i have never been in another time.
But acoording to this, the 70s were better
>>318027
>what important contributions philosophy has made to society
Computer Science.
>>320276
>I dont know because i have never been in another time.
And just when philosophy could have been useful, you refuse to use it
>But acoording to this, the 70s were better
>USA is the whole human population
>>320293
but I'm using it.
I'am a perspectivist, if you dont notice it.
>>320314
And you are shit at it.
>>320326
Philosophy's main accomplishment in the past 200 years was to convince people philosophy was useful
for the rest its mostly people writing about naturally occurring socio-cultural trends and then proclaiming it as their own invention
early philosophy was different simply because it was an early attempt at science without understanding of the scientific method
>>319268
but you're ignoring the part where scientists are retarded dipshits who lack the ability to house an original thought, nevermind a decent discussion
>>318027
Is this seriously what CS majors do? They try to act like a big fish being STEM on a liberal arts board?
electrical engineer senior at PSU here, you CS guys are bottom of the barrel and 95% of you don't know shit. check yourself, retard. Philosophy majors I've talked to are way smarter than any fucking CS major. Get fucking rekt, bitch
>>321450
Only if you go to a shit school with the I wanna makes gaymsXDD crowd
>>322791
Not OP, but I'm STEM because I'm smart enough for it and that's where the money is, and I have dreams of making gayms, instead of a degree in humanities and hopefully being articulate. I'd rather make money and read books as a hobby, than read books for work, and struggle finding a shit job. You really hurt my feefees.
>>319270
>but now graduates are too specialized to comment on general issues with anything approaching wisdom.
The human body of knowledge is to great to learn everything to a reasonable standard, you'd struggle to even learn every aspect of a single topic to a reasonable standard within a lifetime.
>>318027
Kek, turns out she didn't learn shit from her studies.
If you were to ask me the same question, I would tell you that you're asking the wrong question, and that it's too materialistic.
Philosophy isn't about creating the new iPhone or nuclear energy, it's the knowledge about human existence, something STEMautists unfortunately won't ever understand.
>>322828
What new knowledge about the human existence have we got over the last 50 years thanks to philosophy though?
>>322840
>we
See, that's the thing. It's not about the masses, they're going to believe whatever that's been watered down and spoon-fed to them anyways.
Your premise is wrong, philosophy is not supposed to contribute to the everyday life of plebs. However, it contributes greatly to the minds of people capable of understanding it.
>>322852
Sounds more like a hobby than a profession. That's fine, but don't go demanding society pay for it.
>>318033
>philosophy taking credit for all sentient thought even when the people responsible have never spent years studying philosophy
Lol philosophy students are so desperate to be relevant.
>>322866
I haven't demanded anything, I have all my material needs covered.
>>322866
When has society ever paid for philosophers? They all do it in their spare time.
>>318027
Everything comes from philosophy, except maybe law and medicine.
Every scientific discipline has its origin in philosophy.
When you talk shit about philosophy you're like a person who beats his mother.
>>318063
Also this guy.
>>322961
>law
>not philosophy
What
>>319387
>We should be asking a different question: what has society done for philosophy in the last 50 years
Exactly.
It's not the philosopher's fault that people don't think philosophy is valuable.
Every learned person knows that philosophy is valuable - it's the pinnacle of human wisdom and knowledge.
It's the people who abandoned philosophy and decided that it is not valuable anymore.
But just look around: the world is in chaos.
People don't know anymore, but they DO need philosophy, to fix all these problems.
Although as I said in another thread: it's the academic philosophy's fault, too, in a way.
When society decided that it doesn't need philosophy anymore, philosophers accepted this and decided not to do anything about it.
>>322966
>"except maybe"
>>322998
Not him, but law is impossible without philosophy.
>be me philosophy major
>meet maths major
>she tells me maths is very important
>ask her what important contributions maths has made to society the last 50 years
>she couldn't have think of anything else than 1+2+3+...=-1/12 and Barnett's spaces of triple integrable functions
>>323399
Dubs don't lie.
>>323399
>what is computer science?
>>323017
no it isn't you fuck head.
Being an engineer is impossible without calculus.
Nothing about law necessitates studying philosophy for years first.
When a dilemma or conflict of ideals arises then youanalyse the situation with common sense.
Does anyone notice how philosophy fags are desperate to pretend that all sensible mental reasoning and problem solving is thanks to philosophy?
As though until you've read kant it is literally impossible for you to use deductive reasoning.
>>323767
>When a dilemma or conflict of ideals arises then you analyse the situation with common sense.
This "common sense" you are saying gets dictated thanks to philosophy. There are many "correct" ways to take that kind of decisions.
If you don't believe me, see Abortion, Death Penalty, etc
Sincerely, an engineer
>>323767
Tell me, have you studied law?
>>320276
But would you like to live in the 70s if you had the choice?
>>318143
this
>>323767
>When a dilemma or conflict of ideals arises then youanalyse the situation with common sense.
This is literally part of the Socratic method
