Is Philosophy dead?
>>319058
Ya, materialism killed it
>>319058
No.
Holy fuck, stop this shit.
Was it ever alive?
Yeah.
Kant was the last great philosopher.
>>319058
No, and the only reason I say that is because there are still question that other fields of study can't answer nor do they have any point of reference to begin to answer. These questions philosophy is the only study that tries to take them on.
Philosophy is no longer for understanding how the world works. It's for helping humans understand life and what to do with theirs.
>>319138
>Philosophy is no longer for understanding how the world works. It's for helping humans understand life and what to do with theirs.
And what have philosophers in the last 50 years said that was useful about that?
The fact that you ask that question means it is alive and well.
>>319175
memes
>>319175
I'm sure philosophers have added an original idea or two to to some aspect of the human experience in the last 50 years. Philosophy is ludicrously general. It's basically synonymous with "the study of". For example there is philosophy of science which is just about reflecting on the utility, course, and how we should think about science.
>>319058
Only because God is dead. Philosophers can banter with theology and still be relevant and hip, but against economics and scientism they kinds fall, since the totalizing effect is too strong.
>>319224
Which philosopher of science had in the last 50 years any effect on how scientists think?
>>319058
Science seems to have superseded it in everything but ethics. I think philosophy is still useful on a personal level for improving your outlook and mental flexibility, but aside from ethics I don't know how much it has to offer the wider world anymore.
>>319058
We don't need philosophy. We have science.
>>319124
Do we have free will? What is morality? Is are mind separate from are body? Just to name a few.
>>319365
IDK. I don't even like philosophy.
Is this /sci/ or is this /his/?
Why are you all so ignorant...Why would Philosophy be dead after thousands of years?
Have you all gone mad?
Science is not the be all end all. The contemporary scientific method is simply a stepping stone, much like proto scientific processes and thinking before it.
In 500 years, everything will be different, including the acceptable ways of inquiring and exploring reality and existence.
Just because you are alive in this time does not mean processes that have been going on for thousands of years(and are ingrained in human existence behavior and thinking) are gonna come to an end.
The processes of the exploration of reality are constantly changing.
There are plenty of credible criticisms over the modern way of doing science and of the supposed scientific "method".
There have been plenty of rock star Philosophers in the second part of the 20th century and there are plenty now.
What do you think Zizek is? Look at his influence on the general public and on different fields of research.
Look at Deleuze's work that has had far reaching influences on many different fields.
Philosophy is like a web that envelopes, penetrates and reflects on everything.
>>319058
Yes, pretty soon people are gonna look back at philosophy the same as alchemy, metaphysics, and astrology.
>>319582
>Philosophy is like a web that envelopes, penetrates and reflects on everything.
Yes but to realize this you have to be understand philosopher. It's the field that makes theories that the other fields utilize. Even laymen end up being enveloped in some philosophy or another, although they might not know the names.
It's dead insofar there's no "great men" coming out with "great works" anymore.
Analytic philosophy completely killed any chance of that ever happening.
There's still some work philosophy does but metaphysical drivel has largely been "replaced" by science and "life philosophies"... Well, we drowned in materialism a long time ago, noone even gives a shit anymore. Nothing is ever going to replace philosophy for ethics, but the people don't care anymore. Contemporary politics are an embarrassment of >muh gibsmedats and >muh freedumbs
>>319058
As long as there's humans wanting to walk towards understanding there will be philosophy. It deals with the most general scope of understanding and all the other epistemic activities are derived from it.
>>319592
Go read a fucking book...
>>319085
Philosophy can't answer a god damn thing.
>>319702
it really isn't about answering questions though, more about posing them and thinking about how they could be answered.
>>319629
Delueze did metaphysics just fine a few decades ago.
>>319477
>Do we have free will? What is morality? Is are mind separate from are body? Just to name a few.
Philosophy can't answer any of those questions. It can't answer anything because its not a science. It doesn't test hypothesis, it just makes them. These questions can't be answered by anything yet and when they can it'll be science and not philosophy.
>>319716
You just proved my point.
>>319721
Philosophy answered the question of free will ages ago, long before neuroscience was even a thing. People just literally ignored Spinozas/Schopenhauers arguments because it hurt their feelings. Then science confirmed what they were saying all along, and surprise surprise, people still fucking ignore it and pretend they have free will.
Mind/body dualism is also fucking dead, people hate Cartesianism like hell.
>>319734
We've had nations be built and destroyed by philosophies.
Nazi Germany, Israel=Nietzsche
USSR=Marx
France and Democracy in general=Lock, Rosseu
>>319702
You're right. Philosophy on its own can't answer questions in today's day in age, but combined with other fields like technology they can further advance things like artificial intelligence this is been proven my work from Alan Turing who was a logician.
>>319734
I was agreeing with you, but I don't think you realize that there is value in what philosophy actually does, you are just stating what it doesn't do.
>>319718
Same guy.
Metaphysics being dead is a bad joke, just so you know.
Scinetists are also guided by certain metaphysical ideas.
People just think science is making experiment and the right answer falls out.
You have to interpret the answers, you have to think what to research over other things and what route to take. What disciplines to connect and your own ideas about the concepts you deal with(in whatever field you are in).
A physicist's imagination and ideas about different concepts like time and space defines what sort of research he will do and in what ways he will examine his work and thinking.
Paradigms and major changes in different scientific fields are effected and are partially the result of culture and cultural shifts which are in turn also effected by philosophy.
There is nothing amazing or universally better in exploring reality through a telescope or through an accelerator.
Human perception is just as valid a tool for exploring reality.
Different tools we created simply filter reality in different ways which expand our capacities.
Exploring how electrons behave does not make exploring society as a whole an obsolete endevour.
>>319755
What value is there that I'm not seeing. Hypothesizing about questions is necessary in any field of study that actually does work.
>>319721
You're so epistemologically ignorant it's not even funny. You're the classical case of scientists adopting a logical positivist mindset without even knowing what it is or what it says, your epistemological framework is so ingrained in the scientific method that you expand it to every realm of understanting.
You are the cancer that we call scientism and for that reason you should consider killing yourself, academia will be a better place.
>>319772
>Hypothesizing about questions is necessary in any field of study that actually does work.
because all fields of study have a philosophical aspect.
>>319775
How does one type so much but essentially say fucking nothing?
It degenerated. Plato was right at pretty much everything anyway.
>>319804
Plato was wrong about everything you retarded shitstain
>dude ideas lmao
>>319801
You just didn't understand, it's ok tho, but please consider what i said in the last sentence :)
>>319801
By being a philosopher
>>319775
Explain how anything I said was wrong. Are you upset that I'm concerned with objectively correct answers?
>>319825
>Durr hurr you don't understand
Of course not, you don't either. There's nothing to understand when there's nothing of substance in the first place.
>>319775
I'm sorry you don't find any importance in the answering those questions. You can find just as many pit falls in science just research quantum mechanics pretty much does philosophical puzzles combined with math and physics.
>>319824
Lol. Sorry if you and everyone else is too dumb to understand him.
>>319845
>There's nothing to understand when there's nothing of substance in the first place.
But that's simply not true you fucking idiot. Show the part you don't understand and i will explain it to you like you're 5...
>>319833
>I'm concerned with objectively correct answers
Time to be a mathematician then, not a scientist.
>>319582
>Zizek
Oh lol
In the past civilizations, philosophy was the cornerstone that influenced rulers and changed societies.
Today people are convinced to have faith in science and ignore philosophical questionings, philosophers no more influence rulers, currently they are influenced by rulers.
>>319878
You took an entire paragraph to basically ad hominem that other anon and filled it with as many fancy sounding words as you could. You could have just called him a faggot for thinking only logical and empirically solved problems and questions are important and have been done without the pseudo-intellectual crap.
>>319878
>Time to be a mathematician then, not a scientist.
oh nevermind. You're stupid. But like I said /his/ is literally one of the dumbest boards. The only difference is its lofty opinion of itself. It felates itself over tribal non-issues or pseudo-intellectual pondering while being completely ineffective and immaterial in any form of reality. All those big words and lofty ideas are, in the end, just hot air. Vapor. Whatever. I'm still enjoying the historical discussion.
>>320006
>tribal
trivial. Autocorrect.
Science is a religion more than anything else.
>>320006
I think this place would be great without the other humanities and ivory tower garbage.
>>320051
>ivory tower
Unless you up high you can't see the big picture.
>>320081
More like you can't see shit when you're shut up in your tower and thinking about what shit is like outside the window when you can't touch the curtains. And while you're masturbating mentally the "plebs" that can't see the big picture from the ground are busy putting together the smaller pieces of the picture together piece by piece to see the small picture and the larger picture at the same time.
>>320030
How you feel doesn't matter. What's true is what matters. Truth is the one thing that persists beyond is all. And even if you can't understand that, it'll continue to be true.
>>320157
>is
us, Jesus christ i hate phones.
>>320157
>science
>truth
laughing_hume.jpg
>>320121
Why don't you invite a few laymen and have them 'piece togeather' the big picture in science.
Maybe all scientific research should frist requir approval by a majority vote from laymen?
Let's have the average man decide what we should research and how we should go about it.
What do you think of that? Or do you agree that we should leave the experts alone to formulate their masterplans and construct their wonder machines? Or should we invent the plebs in with their 'wisdom of the masses'? Should we have students teach the professor? No even better have people that have never been in the class teach the professor's mentor?
Anti-elitism is fucking cancer. An expert is going to know more than a pleb. The plebs not only can't see the big picture they can't even see the small pieces. It's the same in both science and philosophy.
I know this hurts your feelings to say that if you aren't part of the elite than your opinion is fucking worthless but that's how it fucking is. If all you have is a highschool education in a subject you aren't ever going to say anything an expert is going to have not already heard a trillion times.
Computer science major here, for me it entirely depend on the field of philosophy or philosopher. I took one existentialism course and fuck me that was bullshit. It sounded like words from people who have completely lost their minds. Also to add to the bullshit list list: Descartes Kierkegaard, Hegel, and Nietzsche. I enjoyed Plato and Aristotle though. Leibniz was good. Kant was good. I also took some philosophy of logic courses and those were great. I just think it depends on the area of philosophy. I kind of want to read some works by Russell now.
>>320208
The "plebs" I was talking about in this context were scientists actually. But it's funny that you think you're "elite" when you're so out of touch with reality. You're elite at writing a bunch of bullshit like a sophist though.
>>319477
>Do we have free will?
No
>What is morality?
Pragmatism
>Is are mind separate from are body?
No
>>320218
Philosophy gets result. You got the scientific method from Bacon and Descartes. A secularized world where the church isn't going to control your research from Voltaire. Whatever country you are living will have a philosopher that formed the general outlines for it. Than finally whatever you invent is going to need be used in some way and that will involve philosophy about how resources should be used and distributed.
If you look at philosophy from a purely logical positivist point of view (I made this mistake when I started philosophy) you are going to miss the big picture. Philosophy moves society in all sorts of ways by creating new values.
>>320233
Russel is lulzy as far as philosophers go. He spent his whole life trying to prove 1+1=2 and failed. He fucked around with logical positivism and had his successors prove the entire thing was wrong. You might want to look at Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigation instead, it' going to be very relevant for something like programming. You also might want to look at the Stoics who's philosophy is very practical for a desk job.
Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche are gods of philosophy but I wouldn't expect everyone to understand them.
>>320157
I was reading traditionalist and esoteric texts who said exactly that. Thanks for proving my point.
>>319746
I don't see the connection between either Nazi Germany or Israel to Nietzsche. The idea of "ubermentch" can be related to Nazi Germany, but the rest is not.
Neither are nihilistic because they all believe in a cause greater than themselves.
The slave revolt idea cannot be related to either Israel nor Nazi Germany, as they both believed in objective good and evil.
I don't see the relations at all.
>>319214
richard dawkins invented the meme and he's as anti philosophy as it gets
>>320242
“It is no crime to be ignorant of philosophy, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a difficult or confusing. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on philosophical subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
>>320157
STEM tard.
Science is a process by which Reality is filtered a certain way to find answers and solutions to what we define as problems and as things needing to be solved/changes.
If you define truth to be the solutions to the problems we defined than yes the scientific method provides this truth in certain ways.
If you think some sort of "absolute truth" exists(whatever that might be), that we discover through science or math than you are a devoted theist and should go into theology studies.
>>319058
Seeing how more people than ever have studied philosophy, I'd say it's very much alive.
The question is either: "are we due a new great philosopher?"
It's probably because of the readily availble information we all have now that anyone can be an armchair philosopher. Who stands out?
Maybe philosophy isn't much of a seperate thing anymore. Because it is so relevant, it has penetrated so many arts and sciences that we barely notice it anymore.
In our current culture of online debate and introspection we may have even taken it for granted.
>>319804
Plato was full of crap, especially on egoism.
>>320338
There is no relative truth. All "relative" truths can be reframed as absolute truths with certain axioms as a basis. The converse isn't true just by definition. Whether we can actually know the absolute truth is a separate issue. Saying there is no absolute truth is just a linguistic trick invented by can't know nothing faggots.
>>320331
Nietzsche was a major influence in the founder of Zionism, Hertzel. The N man was also a huge influence on Hitler. They don't often use direct quotes but you can see the same concepts and evaluations in their writings. Both of them were have known to read Nietzsche and admired them.
For instance there is a a quote somewhere in Mein Kampf which directly talks about Nietzsche's theory of ressentiment and the slave revolt using the sun and moon as metaphors.
>>320338
>nothing exists
Okay buddy, you have A LOT of explaining to do. If you think we live in a blank void , you have lost your mind.
Because even the greatest philosophers like Aristotle set science back 1000 years. Almost everything he wrote about matter and physics was proven wrong. Let's not forget the many problems with virtue ethics found by other philosophers.
>>320366
Perhaps on Zionist thinkers, but in practice, Zionism and Nietzsche's philosophies ended up entirely different. There was nothing nihilistic about Zionism.
Hitler used to appropriate all sorts of philosophy that had nothing to do with his beliefs.
>>320334
>he thinks spouting a bunch of bullshit makes him elite
>y-you just don't understand! I'm e-elite and well versed in intelligent thought for intelligent elites such as myself!
I understand alright, I understand that you say very little in very many words. And here you are shitposting on the scientific achievement of the internet. Of course you can't even shitpost and ad hominem without reveling in your own pseudo-intellectualism.
>>320364
>Saying there is no absolute truth is just a linguistic trick invented by can't know nothing faggots.
You completely reversed it. Saying there is an absolute truth is an invention of language. Read Wittgenstein or Derrida, anything you communicate is going to be relativistic.
This is why we you guys need philosophers, to tell you this crap. Philosophy is the field that can define truth. As a matter of fact the aboundement of searching for "Truth" with a capital t has been a huge help to science.
>>320383
>There was nothing nihilistic about Zionism
And Nietzsche hated nihilism. =/
Did you even pay attention in class? The man literally has an entire chapter in Will to Power called "against nihilism" or something similar to that.
>>320395
>anything you communicate
>language
You already don't understand what I'm talking about because you can't stop thinking in terms of linguistic tricks.
All your "philosophy" is doing here is mudding the water with semantics bullshit, aka linguistic tricks.
This is why no one takes philosophers seriously anymore.
>>320379
>2015
>being this retarded
Please post a pic of yourself, i want to see what a person missing a few chromossomes looks like.
>>320425
The world would have been much better if Aristotle never wrote about science or ethics
>>320439
Well he was highly relevant to Newton and literally invented logic.....
>>320420
The only people who don't take philosophy seriously are the one's that don't understand it. You can scream about it all you want but the scientific fields will still seek out philosophers to explain epistemology. You may never read their books, know their names, you can even deny that they are helping but it won't change that they are still going to be relevant to your field. Honestly if you want to never read a philosophy book in your life that's perfectly ok.
You are like the creationist that denies evolution but still benefits from the study of it.
>>320439
>The world would have been much better if Aristotle never wrote about science or ethics
HAHAHAHA
>>320456
>tfw STEM
>tfw not like them
ffffffff
>>320375
>im an idiot
What is absolute truth?
Its a concept as incoherent as the concept "god".
Thinking you can attain absolute truth is as incoherent as saying you can discover heaven.
It would be more rational to say Humanity simply constantly re-filters and restructures itself and reality in different ways.
We restructure reality now and we restructure the past as we preserve certain parts of it that we filter through ourselves.
>>319365
In the past 50 years there's been almost nothing but postmodern masturbation from philosophy.
Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, and Hegel are pretty much the philosophical backbone of science, though.
>>320471
People have all sorts of useless pass times and that includes scientists. I know graduate students who watch anime and listen to jpop music.
>explain epistemology
lmao I'm sure they love plantinga's reformed epistemology
Look bud, if you want to read about some dead guy who found this NEAT little linguistic trick that proves it's just all relative mang, that's fine by me, but anyone who actually understands what we're talking about thinks you're an idiot.
>>320504
It is an absolute truth that pure water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level on Earth.
There is an absolutely true account of every event to ever occur.
Truth requires empiricism, even moral truth.
>>319365
Hahahha retard
POPPER
KUHN
Philosophy of science gave us good insights and destroyed Science with a big S.
>>320504
>Its a concept as incoherent as the concept "god"
somehow missed this
please tell me about the time you BTFO'd the entire philosophy of religion with your impeccable relativist atheist logic
I'm not even a theist but holy shit would this be one massive breakthrough if relatively true
>>320471
>The only people who don't take philosophy seriously are the one's that don't understand it.
>I'm so smug that my mental masturbation cannot be wrong
>>320496
Isn't this just fedora tipping on an even higher level? You somehow found a way to be even smugger than them.
>>320523
>It is an absolute truth that pure water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level on Earth
That's how it works on paper. If youv'e ever boiled water you'd know there isn't a clear line between a state of boiling and not boiling, the exact value is going to vary depending on your needs.
This is why truth with a capital T is not very practical and is generally a waste of time outside of things like math, which are just models of reality.
You wanna know something even weirder? a^2+b+^2=c^2 isn't an absolute truth either. It's an approximation that's only 100% accurate on paper. In real life all things are just vibrating matter, there are no straight lines at all and whatever you measure is in flux and constantly changing.
>moral truth
>empirical
LOL
>There is an absolutely true account of every event to ever occur
There might be a 'thing in itself' that we are completly aware of but we don't study the truth. We study perception. It's a basic philosophical understanding that Empiricism is faulty: you've got the problem of induction for one thing.
Rationalism is also faulty because even statements like "I think there for I am" have bias and assumptions in them. The human mind is forever just a perception.
Science has never been about absolute truth, it's been a functionalism thing. The closet thing to absolute truth is math and even that is fucked up because
a) it's just a model that does not represent the real world
b) stuff like Gobbel's incompleteness theorem tells us the model will always be faulty.
As another annon said absolute truth is basically the atheist's version of God and heaven. Unless you want to down the path of Plato it's not a real concept.
>>320574
>That's how it works on paper. If youv'e ever boiled water you'd know there isn't a clear line between a state of boiling and not boiling, the exact value is going to vary depending on your needs.
Dumbest thing said in this entire thread. Variance can be attributed to pressure. Which we can also measure. Real life can be measured unlike in your fuzzy mental masturbations.
>>320395
Hahaha holy shit! I'm laughing really hard. If you actually believe that then get help.
>>320548
>implying the concept of god is very coherent
They do not rely on this to be true in their arguments.
God is not a coherent concept unless you claim things like immaterial and all knowing to be coherent concepts in themselves.
The argument over god is very different to the argument over what is absolute truth since the characteristics that are assigned to "god" include within themselves a possibility of us understanding something about "god".
What is absolute truth?
Please define this.
It is only valid if you are a theist and are thus given absolute truth by an absolute being.
Under such sophistic and linguistic shenanigans absolute truth can be said to exist.
>>320598
Do you measure the fucking air pressure before you boil water for your spaghetti? Do you wait until exactly 100.00+-1 degrees before throwing the pasta or do you just eyeball it and wait until there's a decent among of bubbles.
What I am talking about is the real life way to boil water, you are the one engaging in pointless mental masturbation about the water boiling. This is the type of crap that can actually be bad science, ever heard of a margin of error? That's a standard part of measuring just about anything.
As a scientist you could not give a shit about philosophy. That would mean that the standard paradigm of your field you get taught will be your only reference point and you won't even pay attention to the assumptions and theorethical frameworks underlying it. This is a massive handicap. Don't be like 99% of the good for nothings with this handicap. Think about Einstein. He was a scientists. He was a philosopher. And that was important. For it made him step out of evident background assumptions. And that is why he could change the very concept of time when he created a new scientific paradigm. As a scientist you need philosophy, conceptual analysis, and the mental flexibility it provides to be succesful. Induction problem, kuhns paradigms (or lakatos research programmes or laudans research traditions), demarcation, duhem-quine thesis are all concepts that have had a severe impact on science & scientists. To be ignorant of these concepts and others would be detrimental to the scientific praxis. Do you want the fixed paradigmatic methodology, or do you want control over your thoughts and research subject? Philosophy will grant you a bigger conceptual vocabulary. And what does the 'theory ladeness of language' entail? Oh right: your language defines the way you see the world. And what does the 'theory ladeness of observation' entail? Oh right: your background theorethical framework will affect your observation. So do you want to stick to the paradigm (which can always change and will have anomalies as well) and commit to solving puzzles or do you want to have more tools in your toolbox?
>>320574
You are talking to a wall m8, no point. I was an hardcore atheist/materialist myself but these people truly convinced me there is literally no difference between them and creationists. Not only they TL; DR everything that doesn't fit their narrative, they are also very opinionated about it instead of at least being humble and skeptical about it.
>>320523
water, boiling, sea level...
These are all you perceptions of reality. A filtering of reality through your senses and brain.
You are predisposed to filter reality a certain way and make conclusions about it.
We are eternally biased because we filter reality based on certain characteristics.
What if you filtered reality in such a way that a thing like water did not exist?
It is a result of very specific senses you have and dont have.
If we saw everything like a microscope would a thing like water exist for us? No because we would not be biased to group all this molecules and the overall visual impression they leave on the human eyes.
>>320566
Like you are doing now?
*tips fedora*
>>320647
>What if you filtered reality in such a way that a thing like water did not exist?
Then water would still exist and it would still boil at 100C and you would probably end up drowning in it because reality doesn't care about your perceptions and you probably wouldn't even exist in the first place because natural selection would have wiped out your ancestors.
Got anymore pointless hypotheticals?
>>320620
>Do you measure the fucking air pressure before you boil water for your spaghetti?
No, but I could if I wanted to do a controlled experiment to show why it happens in real life. And yes there will be margin of error due to instrumentation and human error and such but that's irrelevant in the end because that is the fault of independent variables and not the "fuzziness" of the boiling point. You're just arguing bullshit semantics at this point.
Water will boil at a certain point no matter what bullshit you dream up. Just like other mechanics of our world that can be demonstrated to happen predictably.
>>320647
What i mean to say that our senses and our concepts tear and rip reality into different groups based on our needs.
We only have the concept of water because of our bias for seeing things a certain way and thus grouping together certain things for convenience.
Reality is something that includes everything and we are a part of it.
We create and mold reality and ourselves as part of us being conscious beings.
Something we cant help but differentiate a certain way and others we consciously choose to.
>>320683
That's a whole lot of words for a whole lot of nothing.
>>320679
Can you think more abstractly at all? the concept of water is a result of our in built bias to see things at a certain "zoom level" if you please. A concept that combines a certain group of molecules and their movement was created by us because it was an important distinction on which our lives relied.
We decided to differentiate this mass out of other masses and we defined boiling because its is a change in the movement of molecules and atoms that is important to our lives and to our problem solving.
>>320680
Everything is an appproximation.
Let's take the concept of 100 degrees. It's when the bit of mercuary reaches a certain point on a scale. That is going to be based on your vision. Or if you want a computer to run it's going to be based on what you tell the computer to do. A degree is a human invention we made up to help us in whatever way we like.
You are confusing the model for the real thing. Models are approximations of reality, they are not the same thing as reality.
>>320704
If it wasnt, like say the movement of a single water molecule in a river is unimportant to us now, the concept of water would never have been creates like we do not have a specific name to many arbitrary things and processes that do not meaningfully impact our lives.
>>320690
What is your intended major? I'm assuming you're still in high school.
>>320708
>A degree is a human invention we made up to help us in whatever way we like.
Sure, in that it's an abstraction of a physical phenomenon. There's going to be error out of inaccuracy of the measurement, not the underlying mechanics or the abstraction itself changing. Reality doesn't change just because your perception of it might.
>>320721
Networking/Info Systems and currently studying in college. Of course this doesn't matter in the slightest in regards to the fact that >>320683 loves to sound intelligent but isn't in actuality. Go ahead now, tell me how valuable and prestigious your humanities degree is compared to my field.
>there are no absolute truths except for this one
>fuzziness fallacy
Absolute truth entails an objective reality that exists independently of our perception. If you deny this, you're either a solipsist or a hardcore ontological nihilist, AKA retarded. Have fun with that.
>>320832
>I can't perceive it, but it's there
Nice "intuition" nerd
>>319058
No.
You can't escape it.
>>320866
Nah, everything is just a figment of your imagination. In fact, nothing really exists. This conversation isn't actually taking place and you don't really exist, reality is just a blank void.
Thanks for clearing that up, philosophers! Gee, I wonder why everyone says philosophy is dead when it brings us such valuable insights.
>>320866
You can't perceive parts of the electromagnetic spectrum through human senses, but we sure can infer they exist because of their properties. Stop being retarded.
>>320456
>>320909
Don't get mad just because you can't prove me wrong
>>320759
>Networking/Info Systems
Yeah that sounds about right...
Go read some epistemology and ontology before discussing these things. And definitely read the history of your position, logical positivism(a philosophical one by the way, not empirically verifiable).
Start by watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKACapfkGWI&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM&index=76
>>320977
Lol
>reality exists
>nuh-uh
dude seriously just go to bed, adults are talking
>>319058
Philosophy died as soon as blind grasping in the darkness became invalid as a scientific method
>>320759
>I can't understand this stuff, so im just gonna say is nothing.
>>319058
hopefully
>>320759
>Sure, in that it's an abstraction of a physical phenomenon. There's going to be error out of inaccuracy of the measurement, not the underlying mechanics or the abstraction itself changing. Reality doesn't change just because your perception of it might
Whenever we anything that involves temperature we will base our decisions on the abstraction, not the actual thing. The only truth we work with is the relativistic truth. Also bro, our perception of reality IS the very thing we react to. It's how we make decisions. That's why there is no truth, only perception. You simply cannot escape perception because it's how we measure things.
Now you might argue that just because we can't see the absolute truth doesn't mean it exists but what is the point of speculating on this absolute truth when our lives are about the abstraction. Our temperature study is not about the absolute truth it's about the abstraction, because temperature itself is an abstraction.
This is why I've said science actually benefits from ignoring the absolute truth. Do you really want to waste our time and resources trying to find the 'true temperature water boils at' rather than just stick with the abstraction that has served us so well? The abstraction is still going to make pasta fine. In the time it takes to fuck around with the "truth" you could have made your damn food.
>>321053
>muh respect
>muh value
That's a philosophical position :o)
>>321053
>ad hominen
but thats what the network guy is doing.
>>321023
do most adults strawman this much?
>>321053
Trust me, you have no idea what you're talking about. I actually used to be like you, hardcore materialist and logical positivist, then i changed after confronted with some deep problems. There's no point arguing with you, a lot of people in this thread tried to show how naive you are, but you treat your positivst assumptions as axioms. You won't change your mind in this thread, it will take time and reading.
Just follow my advice.
>>321193
This. I used to be on the same boat as this guy, but eventually changed (not because of problems, but because I started developing a passion for theories, structures, and the truth itself).
The best way to end the toxic point of view the other anon has is to make him read something on philosophy.
I would recommend Sophie's World.
>>320364
Someone clearly has neither formal training in logic nor in metalogic.
>>319801
Not understanding something doesn't mean he didn't say nothing.
>>320528
>Philosophy of science gave us good insights and destroyed Science with a big S.
How so?
>>321226
or maybe if he watch the matrix... but not for the omg neo dodges bullets" hollywood show.
>>321250
1. Google Popper
2. Open Wikipedia Article on Popper
3. Read Article
>>320504
Truth? God? Humanity?
*Spooks intensify*
>>321260
Or how about you start by telling me what you meant by Science.
"I don't understand philosophy ergo it's unimportant and I'm going to argue that using philosophy" the thread
>>321193
>metaphysical realism = logical positivism
It looks like you were a reasonable person before philosophy and became retarded after reading more philosophy. There's a difference between being open minded and being retarded.
>tried to show how naive you are
Actually, they were nitpicking over words and missing the point, then one guy reduced the debate to whether or not you think reality is a mind independent thing.
>>320574
>Gobbel's incompleteness theorem
It's Gödel...
>>321308
>"There's a difference between being open minded and being retarded."
You have a scientific/mathematical argument for that?
>>321314
You missed the first line in the post you are quoting. If you want to rant about the logical positivist boogeyman you're going have to find someone else to whine to.
>>320627
If the soiled bums in this thread were to read this seriously, then they would temper their arguments.
>>320679
What precisely do you mean by "exist"?
>>321308
>missing the point
And what was the point? What are you actually trying to prove here?
>>321328
No, I read it. But your argument was saying that he was retarded after researching philosophy, and since you discount philosophy I want you to prove how he is stupid using the methods you trust.
>>320680
What makes semantics bullshit? Isn't meaning an important thing to study?
>>321360
Anything that isn't numbers scares his autist brain
>>320708
>You are confusing the model for the real thing. Models are approximations of reality, they are not the same thing as reality.
This is as Wittgenstein as it gets.
>>320759
You're making the dubious metaphysical assumption that Reality exists independent of perception. Read a book m8.
>>321349
>>321299
Why the fuck are you even here?
>>320994
This is what I like to see. A genuine attempt to educate. I hope your effort is met with sincere curiosity. :)
>>321400
>"You're making the dubious metaphysical assumption that Reality exists independent of perception"
>"LOL I'm not going to tell you why! Go read a book rven though there is a large amount of academic literature that supports your ideas! I just want to sound smart"
>>321442
>make claim
>prove it
>nu-uh you prove it's not the case!
[theism intensifies]
>>321451
Are you implying I'm that anon? Also I'm not a theist, nice try though.
>>321451
>"I'm right because someone on the internet couldn't prove their point"
Atheists actually think this way.
>>320759
What kind of evidence would convince you that a humanities degree possesses value relative to a STEM degree?
ITT the Dunning Kruger effect.
>>321423
Opinions are not educational.
>>321420
Why are you here, why are you posting on 4chan, on /his/?
