Has philosophy ever actually solved anything? It's been asking the same questions since its inception.
Has there ever been a philosophical answer that wasn't later superseded by science?
Who says philosophy should solve anything?
The quietist idea, for one, proposes that philosophy should be primarily taken as remedial and therapeutic.
>>410740
Stuff within it's own field?
Yes. All the time. The one that comes most to mind is that it's wildly accepted that Compatibalists have "won" the discussion on free will.
You can never "solve" something objectivally and trufully with philosophy. It is all speculation and thought games, made from many different perspectives with differing opinions.
>>410740
The Scientific method was created by philosophy.
Rationality and Empiricism are both philosophical concepts that were combined to form modern science.
When philosophy solves anything science discipline is born and take all the credit.
I don't think it has solved anything more than science has, really.
Science and philosophy both operate within already given natural laws. Both are just furthering and advancing understanding, not really "solving" anything.
Also, why are science and philosophy so exclusive now? Why aren't philosophers studying science like they used to, and scientists studying philosophy?
>why doesn't philosophy concern itself with the important things in life, like letting me do more things with less effort
>>410803
Basically both fields are too hard to study at reliable level at once. So you either scientist or philosopher or shit in both.
>>410740
>Has there ever been a philosophical answer that wasn't later superseded by science?
They don't really deal within the same realm of questions so I don't see how they would. Examples of when this has happen?
>>410790
>The one that comes most to mind is that it's wildly accepted that Compatibalists have "won" the discussion on free will.
This. But keep in mind that there's always the chance that someone comes up with an argument that puts everything on it's head. Case in point, the Gettier problem that fucked up the traditional analysis of knowledge.
>>410740
It ceases being philosophy and turns into science or mathematics once it actually gets to solving or discovering something.
>>410792
This.
Philosophy was the stepping stone to science, just as alchemy was the stepping stone to chemistry.
Some philosophy is still useful though, like for doing ethics or forming hypotheses to test
>>410814
This desu. Even within your field, you have to specialize to be top notch these days.
>>410803
>Also, why are science and philosophy so exclusive now? Why aren't philosophers studying science like they used to, and scientists studying philosophy?
Vast body of human knowledge.
You don't even get people studying "science" or "philosophy" anymore.
You get highly specialized experts on a minute area of study.
>>410816
>But keep in mind that there's always the chance that someone comes up with an argument that puts everything on it's head. Case in point, the Gettier problem that fucked up the traditional analysis of knowledge.
Yeah. But that to me, more than anything, points to Philosophy being a rigorous system of knowledge. If it was just opinions, the Gettier problem would be just another opinion.
>>410826
You could of course choose a field with significant philosophical overlap like cognitive sciences, linguistics, or anthropology.
>>410803
>Why aren't philosophers studying science like they used to, and scientists studying philosophy?
Because scientists are busy making, inventing, and discovering things. They would garner no benefit from playing rhetorical word games, name-dropping each other, or participating in any other bullshit-oriented circle jerk activities.
Philosophers don't study science because it's hard.
>>410790
And what benefit has humanity derived from Compatibilists winning a discussion on free will?
>>410852
Define "benefit."
>playing rhetorical word games
>>410878
See what I mean?
>>410852
not having to hear free will vs. determinism debates
>>410886
Defining your terms and speaking clearly are the exact opposite of "word games."
You are objecting that your obscurantist word games are not being tolerated.
>>410842
This is such a typical STEMfaggot answer that I literally see a overweight sweaty and fat computer scientist flashing before my eyes when I read something like it.
>>410740
The point of philosophy is move the world. As other people have pointed out the scientific method is just one inventions of philosophy. I know this is going to sound bad to you but philosophy is literally above science. The philosopher is the one who actually tells the scientist how to work, what to work on, how to interpret his data, and the limits of what he can do.
Outside of that philosophy has more or less been had a hand in every major movement in history. You like your Enlightenment values? That's philosophy. You like you individualism well you have the existentialist to thank for that.
Philosophy is basically the abstract field that invents all the other fields. Theology, mathematics, the natural sciences, psychology, linguistics, all of them have philosophical roots.
>>410842
you sound like you'd be fun at parties
>>410924
But annon Wittgenstein basically said terms can only be defined by context. You can't just say 'benefit' and expect people to know what it means. And 'word games' are EXACTLY how terms are defined according to Wittgenstein who is the very guy that started the whole 'speak clearly thing'
WTF do you want? "let's define out terms"..."but don't use language games!" how do you expect words to be defined if not be language. Fucking idiot.
>>410964
why are you throwing a hissy fit over having to define your terms
this ain't a "philosophy" thing, this is a "every field in existence" thing.
>>411028
Don't care what that twink thought. If you want to keep insisting on playing your word games like a child, fuck off and let the adults discuss things clearly.
>>411029
Because it is ironically the anti-philosophers and STEMfags who cannot define their terms.
>>411038
>I want you define your terms and speak clearly
>Shut the fuck up and let us adults speak clearly
Jesus Christ you're retarded.
>>411038
translation: "I don't want to discuss anything. Here's an ad hominin"
You've basically conceded at this point.
>>411038
This, my friends, is why philosophy is still needed.
>>411057
If you're confused about the meaning of a term, pick up a science textbook and flip to its respective chapter. You'll get a clear definition of what everything means.
>>411060
I'm not the other guy, dumbass.
>>410740
Philosophy can't even prove its own existence. Every relevant field split off from it and all that's left is a bunch of sophistry by morons who pretend or actually are stupid enough to not know what a pronoun really means.
>>411080
We always need a containment field to keep morons like you from halting progress in science
>>411101
Yet another Scientism infested stemfag.
I bet you jerk off to a poster of Dawkins every night too don't you?
>>411101
If you knew anything about science, you would know the importance of clear operational definitions that are testable or useful. If you provided one and they disputed it to avoid having to answer the question that would be one thing, but the refusal to do so makes me think you're just a bitter philosopher pretending to be a caricature.
>>411113
>Scientism
Nice buzzword, mate. I bet you're even French. Dawkins must have completely obliterated your world view to make you this mad at science.
>>411090
>If you're confused about the meaning of a term, pick up a science textbook and flip to its respective chapter. You'll get a clear definition of what everything means.
And if you read philosophy books the terms are always defined by the context. Although modern philosophy can get pretty dense and assume you understand the entire lineage of it. Like science textbooks they can be very difficult to understand for laymen.
If someone wants to use words themself like "benefit" they need to define their terms.
Although a word defining terms. No terms can be defined exactly. This is what Derrida proved. The reason is that whenever you define a word you have to use other words. So to clarify one word you must use at least 2 more and than you would need to clarify those two. This creates an infinite cycle so the exact meaning can only be approximated, never fully known.
>>411101
we function as a very important filter on /his/. through a very arcane incantation for which begins with "define your terms", we can make clear the illusory and differentiate authentics from frauds
>>411137
>buzzword
Nah it's not, but I can see why someone like you thinks it is though.
>muh empiricism
>muh things aren't real if they aren't proven in a lab!
>My mother doesn't love me, because I can't observe the atoms of love!
>>411137
If you want your world view obliterated, read Wittgenstein.
lmao, I bet you don't even realise all problems are a result of language
LAMO
>>411153
>I can't observe the atoms of love!
They're actually molecules and ions, not atoms, and they're observed readily.
>>411029
Everyone knows what a benefit is in the vernacular. That includes you. You merely pretend not to know what the term means in the hopes that you can twist the discussion into using an off-beat or esoteric definition that would, technically, make philosophy worthwhile to anyone outside of the field. Outside of name-dropping and cramming as many syllables into one run-on sentence as possible, this is all you fucks do in that field.
>>410790
How can there be a discussion about a term that doesn't even have a definition?
>>411139
Philosophy books don't define terms, they obfuscate meaning and create confusion where there was none.
>>411161
Can you please tell me what a molecule does outside of your perceptive experience of what it seems to do???
Can you tell me how you came to the conclusion that certain molecules against according to the actions of other molecules?
>>411153
Literally the only people I see complain about scientism are dumb religious hicks and occultists. I'm not a psychology so I don't care about your mommy issues. Keep them to yourself.
>>411180
I can read philosophy books and understand what they mean. So can most people that actually take it seriously. If you struggle with that's your problem. Maybe rather than complaining when you can't understand a book you should ask someone more knowledge or research it. But I'm guessing you have never read a philosophy book and just make baseless assertions.
>>411194
>Claims to be a logical scientist
>Makes the ad hom that all people against scientism are dumb religious hicks
LMAO
>>410740
>Has philosophy ever actually solved anything?
Are you unaware of the tradition of knowledge? What is philosophy to you? What is science? Might as well find out where you're starting from so I don't have to spend time explaining how epistemology is the foundation for the scientific method.
>>411201
An observation is not an ad hom.
>>411194
Literally only people I see that complain about philosophy is half-educated students that know nothing about real science.
>>410740
Philosophy is so useless they have to define being useful as an impossibly vague thing to do to mask how useless it actually is.
>>411212
>le only the uneducated don't understand educated topics for educated people such as myself meme
>>411212
What's funny is philosophy and science are complimentary fields. Philosophy has always served as a basis for science's study and scientific discoveries have always opened the door to new discoveries (for instance the discovery of evolution had a profound effect on philosophy).
A lack of respect for philosophy is itself a lack of respect for science and visa versa.
>>411169
tl;dr "I can't define 'benefit' "
just say it bruh you'll feel better
>>411229
>post this anime image to make that I'm from /pol/
>>411180
I read "philosophy books" that define terms
>>411139
Assuming you aren't trolling(this is a big assumption), people are left with no choice but to inquire a definition when you use vague terms, because, if they try to retort without doing so, you'll just claim they are using the wrong definition. This is a very common trolling technique.
When faced with people demanding definitions, they resort to the copy cat game(define "define") or the nirvana fallacy(no definition would be sufficient so it's pointless).
In both cases, these are technical defeats, but the troll can attempt to claim victory anyway.
>>411247
>a-anything that doesn't agree with me is from /pol/
>you're only pretending to like anime on a site that is rooted in anime and Japanese culture!
>N-no one who isn't /pol/ could possibly disagree with me!
Thanks for proving my point retard.
>>411211
The observation helps make my point. Again, your butthurt and personal psychological issues don't invalidate anything.
Actually the positive effect good philosophy has had on the minds of many people throughout history cannot be quantified, so the claim that philosophy is useless is unfalsifiable. G'day sir
>>411270
SO YOU COULDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION?
OK THANKS LOL
>>410740
I don't know, but it has provided us with reasonably satisfying answers from which to choose from. Much like science, in fact.
>>411267
erm what lol
i typed "post this anime image to make that I'm from /pol/"
I don't know what youre talking about, seems like a case of projection to me buddy:)
>>410964
You are literally a sophist. You came in here, and demanded people respond to a phrase that you insist has no meaning.
>>410790
>Compatibalists have "won" the discussion on free will.
Am I being meme'd
Of course not, philosophy not it's just a way to waste time.
As it evolved long time ago into logic.. which also evolved long time ago into math... and then today we have physics but people are more involved and the progress comes from the computing field.
>>411212
Nobody complains about philosophy. We just acknowledge it as stupid. The hardest phil. course is deductive logic. Passed it with flying colours
>>411253
There are degrees of clarity in definitions. The more context we have the more clear it gets. As I said a 100% clear definition is simply not possible because all context itself needs to be defined by further context into infinity. However with well placed words it is possible to define a great deal of things good enough.
However just using an abstract word like 'benefit' and refusing to define it is weak. If you say "show me how philosophy has benefit" you really need to tell me wtf you are looking for. There have already been several examples in this thread of philosophy's uses. We are not even getting input on whether or not those qualify as 'benefit'. I'll also add that this explanation is itself showing a use for philosophy, to understand the nature of language which has uses in pretty much every field ever.
>>411297
>hardest phil class
>deductive logic
uhhh
>>411285
>post this anime image to make that I'm from /pol/
That doesn't even make sense grammatically.
>>411297
>because I took in a course in it means I am expert in it
Well I guess writing novels is fucking easy since I passed English. Eh?
>>411297
> Passed it with flying colors
You can pass anything if it isn't your field of education. Economists pass math all the time even if abstract math is much harder than practically anything.
>>411319
Funny because the opposite is also true. You don't need to pass an English class to think writing a novel is easy, but the philosophyfag's favorite sophistry is that the opponent can't understand what he's talking about unless he's well versed in their nonsense in the first place.
>>411318
I know, I just wanted your subconscious mind to expose itself:)
>>411335
Nobody fucking cares about the degree they care about the work.
Using your logic art is easy to do and sucks because it's piss easy to get a degree in it. Just because you got a degree in art doesn't mean you can be Beethoven and because you got a degree in philosophy you can't be Nietzsche.
Do I really have to explain to you that degrees are literally pieces of paper? Fucking idiot.
>>411352
>I was only pretending to be retarded
>>411335
>specific university major and course outline
>modern day non-rigorous academic environment
>actually thinks university is difficult
LMAO
YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP
hey, please read "philosophical investigations" for me and get back to me, thanks
>>411362
keep exposing yourself bud:)
>>411028
Ah, but there are sorts of language games. In fact, you're playing one right now, where you shift the meaning of "word games" from a perjorative to an interactive experience.
Context sensitive language is exactly what I'm engaging in here. I don't have enough context to understand what he means by 'benefit.' I would like him to engage me in a shared context.
The very fact that he's unwilling to share a context means that he is not engaging in communication, by masturbation.
>>411101
You're the only one here who's rejected the benefits of science, friend.
>>411169
>Everyone knows what a benefit is in the vernacular. That includes you.
I know that the vernacular is the vernacular because it can include ranges of meaning, subtext, and implications.
I know if I actually held you to any meaning of 'benefit' that could be understood in the vernacular, you would also reject this as not in keeping with your meaning, which would clearly trump how other people use the word.
>>411366
kek'd heartily, I'll give you a 5/10 for being amusing.
>>411358
No, using my logic you would conclude that art degrees are a joke and that doing art requires less brain power than doing theoretical physics, which is what reasonable people already believe.
>>411343
No one has ever said you need a degree in philosophy to understand it. But you do need a background to understand philosophy.
For instance Hegel's writing assumes you have read Plato. Shoupenhaurer directly references Kant's ideas. Foucault requires you to know wtf a Genealogy is.
It's just like how you can't suddenly start reading about physics if you don't know basic math. It's not about the degree it's about having the background necessary to read the book. Do I really have to explain something this simple to you?
What you are doing is the exact same tactic anti-science people. They say they can't understand science so it must be bullshit and the scientists are hiding behind jargon. You are making the exact same accusations. And just like the scientist will say the layman can't understand everything the philosopher needs to tell you the layman cannot understand everything.
>>411388
> brain power
Completely made up thing by the way.
>>411335
>everyone told me it was hard so it's hard
this man profess's to be a man of science
>science was employed in defense against slavery
>science is always right
>therefore slavery is right
"14/88 race war NOW!"
- Albert Einstein
>>410740
It's quite ironic that OP's question can't be answered without thinking about what philosophy and science are and what solving a problem means.
What problems are left for philosophy to solve?
>>411343
> I can't understand what they talk about because I never learn about anything in the field
> m-m-m-must be some sort of devil conspiracy
Do you blame all mathematics too when you just doesn't care to learn all theorems or what?
>>411428
define problem bro...
>>411416
See Albert, that's what happens when you use 100% of your brain.
>>411428
You can start solve all of them from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
>>411388
HEY SEEING AS YOU HAVEN'T REPLIED TO ME ILL ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION
SEEING AS YOU BELIEVE IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS, YOU'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOFS FOR THE AXIOMS OF MATHEMATICS
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVE THAT 1+1=2
>>411428
Is Game of Thrones objectively a better show than NCIS?
>>410955
Overspecialization isn't inherently a good thing. Having some generalists is good, they can take context from various fields to do their work, and we'll still have the dedicated specialists for the detailed work and review.
>>411410
>I don't have any
k, I already know.
>>411441
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solved_problems_in_philosophy
>>411388
Are you talking about
A) the actual activity of art and science
B) The activity of getting the degree.
If you are talking about B. Nobody fucking cares. A degree is a piece of paper, you could get the most difficult degree in the world and it wouldn't mean shit if you you don't apply that knowledge to get something meaningful
If you are talking about A...well you are making the radical claim that doing some lab experiments and recording the results is 'harder' or 'better' than making a fucking symphony. You're going to have to back that up. And back to the philophical example. In terms of difficulty you could make a strong case that philosophy is much, much harder to do at the highest than any other field. High level philosophy is argable the hardest thing there is academically. There's been what? 50 Giant philosophers in all history? Maybe 100? Being the next Plato or Hegel isn't exactly easy
>>410740
The first thing my philosophy teacher ever thougt me was that philosophy is actually rather pointless, in itself.
That said, I think the thought experiments provided by philosophy are a form of mental gymnastics. They teach you the art of discussion and make you think outside the box.
What I took away from philosophy myself is to not take our social constructs at face value and always be a little skeptic.
>>411442
> PROVE THAT 1+1=2
It isn't real axiom anon
>>411475
EXPLAIN??
>>411044
I found this funny.
>>411464
> Logic is universal and not tied to a person's book.
There are many kinds of viable logics beside classical. Try again.
>>411044
this
>>411464
What are you even talking about now. If you don't want to read a philosophy book that's fine. But if you want to discuss the contents of the book don't be upset when people say your opinion is worthless. I havn't read Heidigger but if I wanted to know about him I'd listen to someone that actually read his book.
At this point you are literally argueing that the opinion of a guy with no knowledge of a subject is equal to a guy that actually studies it. You are literally promoting anti-intellectualism.
>>411468
It's not a radical claim. It follows from contemporary psychometrics research and it's basically common sense (that some people like you unlearn from reading too much diarrhea and other obfuscatory bullshit). You also happen to not know shit about what is required to do art or science. Basically, you're a piece of work and I don't have the time or inclination to rid you of your outdated relativistic notions of intelligence.
>>411485
This is formal proof that works in axiomatic that used in modern math. It proves that 1+1=2 is true. At least if you can understands all symbols here.
>>411529
LMAO, YOU MEAN RUSSELL'S PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA???
WAIT UNTIL I RELEASE MY PAPER DESTROYING THAT OLD BUFFOON
>>411529
>Principia Mathematica
Holy kek
>>411441
>Molyneux problem
Why was this ever considered a philosophy problem?
>Qualia
Claims an unnecessary extra step exists without any justification.
>Moral luck
Non-issue in systems that eschew the concept of responsibility.
>Moral knowledge
Evolutionary game theory.
>Philosophy of mind
All of these are science problems.
Everything else there is either semantics or a futile attempt at achieving 100% certainty.
>>411503
>At this point you are literally argueing that the opinion of a guy with no knowledge of a subject is equal to a guy that actually studies it.
No, I'm arguing against the idea that you assume they have no relevant knowledge in the first place worthy to form an opinion. I'm arguing against pseudo-intellectualism that assumes you can't possibly disagree with someone in any meaningful fashion unless you're well or formally studied. Define the "equality" of someone's opinions. Just because someone reaches on opinion in a different manner than you expect from a different discipline does not make it invalid.
>>411525
>STEM is now objectively the smartest thing you can be on the earth
Smarter than Nietzsche, better brains than Beethoven, greater mental power than Shakespear, more cunning than Sun Tzu! And it's objectively provable that STEM knowledge takes more brain power than any other [citation missing] but if you disagree you are a have been "reading too much diarrhea and other obfuscatory bullshit" (I myself never read philosophy books but I know it's all bullshit because of my brainiac mind)
The fucking arrogance of STEMlords!
>>411525
>it's basically common sense (that some people like you unlearn from reading too much diarrhea and other obfuscatory bullshit)
Yeah! Thinking about things will only confuse us, let's just follow our gut instinct like cavemen!
>>411581
> All of these are science problems.
Then what is science answer to these problems?
>>411581
>a futile attempt at achieving 100% certainty.
So what degree of certainty is good enough and how do you know that trying to reach "100% certainty" is futile?
>>411581
>Non-issue in systems that eschew the concept of responsibility.
Those hypothetical systems are irrelevant to anyone who understands the term "responsibility" or at least speaks a language which contains a word roughly translatable as "responsibility."
A theist rationalist Humanities Professor was teaching a class on Plato, known non-logical positivist
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Platop and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Newton!”
At this moment, a emotionless, Vulcan, logical postivist STEMmajor who had watched all episoides of Bill Nye the scince guy and understood the necessity of Emperisism and fully supported everything Neil deGrasse Tyson ever said held up a copy of Phenomenology of the Spirit.
”How does of this crap make sense?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite post-modernly and smugly replied “Of course not! Truth is entirely subjective, you stupid STEMfag”
”Wrong. The basis for truth is to test something 5,000 times with double blind experiments in a lab. If I can't see it....than it isn't there! ”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He stormed out of the room crying tears, which just shows that he was still being controlled by his emotions. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, some gay Frenchman, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist philosophy professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself denied causality having read Hume.
The students applauded and all changed their degrees to STEM, all of them who would fail to find employment as the market was oversaturated and accepted Sam Harris as their Lord and Saviour. An eagle named “Empiricism” flew into the room and perched atop a copy of principia de mathematica and shed a tear on the chalk. The Bill Nye the Science Guy theme was sung several times, and Steven Hawking himself showed up to explain how science has replaced philosophy.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of an existentialist crisis.
>>411744
>The arrogant professor smirked quite post-modernly
>>411744
Holy kek I'm dying
>>411744
10/10
>>411525
>It follows from contemporary psychometrics research
https://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/GRE%20Scores%20by%20Intended%20Graduate%20Major.htm
According to contemporary metrics, Philosophy is highly competitive in Mathematics, beating out some STEM programs, and achieving the highest in Verbal and Writing skills.
>>411789
The 18th amendment made it illegal to own a nigga this hard etc etc
>>411789
>Business accounting
>Social work
>>411817
What the fuck is even the point of a graduate program in Business Accounting?
>>411744
quality
>>411459
/thread
>>410809
kek'd
>>411716
I've already explained this.
Wittgenstein showed us that words do not have concrete meaning they are determined by context. In order to be 100% clear you must know the exact defination of each word in a statement. Let's say I clarify one of the words?
Well than I will need to use other words to clarify it. Derida points out that since we can only define words with other words. But those words them-self must be defined by yet more words. This creates an infinite cycle. True communication simply cannot exist because all definitions are self-referencing through this infinite cycle of words being clariffied by further words clarified by yet more words. Any attempt to make new definitions will suffer the same fate.
This is how we know 100% clarity cannot happen.
As for what definitions are "good enough" that's pretty easy. If what you say is unclear I will ask for a further explanation and we will play "language games" until we are both satisfied that we understand the statement. So "good enough" is entirely subjective: the speaker and the listener just need to both feel satisfied with the clarity.
>>411789
> Religion has the same average as Mathematics
I wouldn't believe this chart. It equals language of modern science with fairy tales.
>>412098
>girl isn't tipping her hat
Missed opportunity
>>411459
Fantastic.
>>411744
lel
>>410740
It has "solved" issues in jurisprudence and there is semi-practical use of logic in mathematics and science.
>>410740
Yeah. A few centuries ago.
>>411038
>can't even stay competitive in word games against a child
lol pleb
>>410740
Where are these supposed philosophical answers that were later superseded by science?
Well, the entire feild of Ethics is concerned with how people ought to act.
And all politics stems from Political Philosophy, so it created all modern governments.
It also set the aims of science.
Plus, logic has great many uses and Biosemiotics is becoming the biggest movement in Biology since Darwinism.
>>411581
>Moral knowledge
>>Evolutionary game theory
Oh jesus, is this Utilitarianism's new cloak?
>>413613
What exactly is "ought"?
>>413627
I'm saying that all systems must perpetuate as their primary direction. Finding out what is "best" using this mentality is incredibly, even infinitely difficult, but this is not the kind of thing that should be easy.
>>413633
After Genealogy of Morality ethics field started moving into constitutionalism.
Minus the retarded Unitarianism who still haven't gotten the memo. Also minus anyone that still believes in Platonic forms of some kind (religions included)
>>413633
>is "ought"
