>go on reddit/philosophy
>see topics
Why is most of the stuff on there stuff that can easily be dismissed as spooks / muh feels after only reading the title? Is philosophy really so bullshit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/
>>457114
>>go on reddit
>>457114
it's a default sub with 4 millions subscribers it's only ever Singer, Stoics and Youtube vids.
>>457114
>spooks are a valid argument
I hate the stirner kiddies. You're not suddenly above thousands of years of moral and metaphysical thought because you read le spooky German man
>go on reddit
Legimitaly wondering why would you even ponder doing that
>>457233
>if people talked about something for a long time it validates the concepts used
There are cave paintings attesting to your faggotry.
>>457277
>if it's old it's wrong
>2015 come on
Yeah no go back to tumblr
>>457313
Found the undergrad
>>457233
>You're not suddenly above thousands of years of moral and metaphysical thought because you read le spooky German man
>thousands of years of moral and metaphysical thought
literally anything before positivism or the scientific revolution is baseless and absolutely worthless
>>457334
Nice meme
You know Witty disowned his tractatus right? And that positivists couldn't even logically prove their own foundational premises? And that there's been a renaissance of metaphysics in analytical philosophy lately? Lmao go back to school you mental midget
>>457347
I'm not talking about logical positivism you fucking melt
>>457366
>all axioms that cannot be proven by empirical methods are meaningless, except this one
>implying language is objective
>implying there isn't an infinite regress of justifying the atomic meanings of a larger statement when using language to describe truth
Positivism is self-refuting. Please come back when you're over 18
>>457318
>Saying old things aren't inherently correct means you think everything old is wrong
Unable to distinguish any nuances in thought. Anyone who opposes you must take the exact inverted position. This is why I think you're a dumbshit.
>Guys, this random African religion must have more truth than Christianity because it's older
I can make strawmen too, see.
>>457400
by your logic just because classical mechanics has fundamental laws which cannot be proven it is wrong
even if you can't achieve an absolutely objective language of science it still is no reason to strive towards
fuck off cunt
>>457411
it is still no reason not to strive towards it*
>>457411
No, because classical mechanics doesn't make any statements about meaning being dependent on experiential verification, which positivism does. For positivism to be absolutely true it requires the axiom of causality to be true, which by the standards of positivism itself is unproveable
Next time you wanna talk tough do your research
>>457408
Wow, so old things are neither wrong or right by virtue of their longevity, so that must mean we should engage with the ideas on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand, right? Like what adults do?
You're just mad because you thought a Mongolian wine tasting board's favorite meme thinker isn't a substitute for a real philosophical education
>>457422
*is a substitute
>>457422
>classical mechanics doesn't make any statements about meaning being dependent on experiential verification, which positivism does
it's exactly the same thing
the four laws cannot be proven mathematically
>>457428
Oh wow, so you mean to say we cannot prove anything unless we employ unprovable, foundational axioms that enable even the notion of meaningful discourse in the first place? Because if positivism can't prove causality by its own standards, then "meaning can only exist if it is verified by experience" becomes totally circular and meaningless by itself? Thanks for proving my argument Such insight bro, when's the book coming out
>>457434
whenever I'm done fucking ur mum LMAO
>>457216
The anti-natalist, pessimist undercurrent is strong! They're just like Rust.
lmao
>>457422
>Wow, so old things are neither wrong or right by virtue of their longevity, so that must mean we should engage with the ideas on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand, right?
kek
>>457233
>thousands of years of moral and metaphysical thought
How much debate was given to this thought during these thousands of years? And how many people did it involve? How educated were the people debating these things regarding history and sciences?
>>457488
>they didn't know about evolution so they must have been wrong
>just how educated were the thinkers who laid the foundation of philosophy and naturalistic study of the world, anyways?
Why don't you read them and find out for yourself instead of shitposting this drivel
Philosophers are the biggest shitposters it's inhuman. Hirohito should create a /philo/ board.
>>457497
You are talking about thousands of years of debate. Meaning you are involving some piss poor Rabbis that probably don't have surviving writings of their own.
And we are not talking only about evolution, you are involving about three thousand years worth of people who didn't understand anatomy to the degree a modern fourth grader does.
>>457530
What a bunch of twaddle. As if scientific knowledge is the only knowledge that counts.
You don't need to know about neurons to understand the human mind, how it behaves, what harms it and what promotes it's flourishing. You don't need to know nutrition to know health means being fit, agile, and strong. You don't need to know about muscle anabolism and psychology to know adversity makes one stronger. You don't need to know the latest findings in string theory to be a wise and spiritually mature person. You don't need to know quantum mechanics to know everything is ephemeral. These people learned through experience, through naked contact with reality. They weren't insulated inside universities and behind screens waxing philosophic about inane abstractions.
Believing scientific knowledge is a substitute for wisdom and practical skills is retarded.
>>457565
Ok tell me how you would prefer to be refuted:
A list of downright self-destructive practices from these people. Maybe include groups outside of the Middle East, as well so it doesn't look like antagonizing Abrahamic religions?
Or just practical day-to-day examples of how disorganized introspection and anecdotal evidence produce major judgement mistakes?
Maybe show how all these people making "naked contact with reality", often reached opposite conclusions?
>>457620
Please, like science isn't constantly in the process of revising itself. Like no scientist has ever misread his own biases in the data or come to a completely different conclusion than what it suggests.
You're whipping out the typical pomo riposte of "well if it's wrong sometimes, it's wrong all the time!"
If you had actually studied religion you'd realize the wisdom writings of the Sufis, Taoists, Buddhists, Jews etc. are all practically identical and unanimously agree on the existence of higher truths and the spiritual discipline necessary to attain them. You'd also realize figures like the Buddha urged their followers to take everything a "holy man" with a grain of salt, and to always subject it to a critical examination to see if it aligns with your deepest principles.
The assumption that all knowledge ends at discursive knowledge, or that the truth is better THOUGHT than EXPERIENCED is incredibly naive.
>>457455
You can pick out someone retarded from any ideology.
>>457114
r/philosophy used to be a great sub with a lot of intelligent discourse. Did they make it a regular sub or something?
>>457911
yes
>>457455
Nice tabs
