The title says it all
Shouldn't you be on /lit/?
>>463275
Why did you chose to waste your life?
That may be so. I apologize.
I woulden't say studying philosophy is a waste. I live in a very rich country. My basic needs is met almost whatever I do and whatever befalls me. And so i just want to study and work with what I find interesting.
>>463275
What is knowledge?
One usually operates with three conditions for something to count as knowledge. The person who has the knowledge must believe it is true. It must also fit the world. And thirdly, the person must be justified in believing it is true.
>>463275
Do you take eftpos? If so it'll be a regular cappuccino with 1 sugar
>>463275
How do you think your life would be different if you were an Assbaby?
>>463364
This seems like what you would describe as "true knowledge". I simply asked what knowledge is, whether true or not
>>463585
Not the same person but it isn't really knowledge if it isn't true, is it?
>>463275
Doing yourself a disservice coming here OP.
The top invaders to this board is /pol/ and /sci/ and both of them think anything that diverges away from engineering and science in general should be banned.
>>463275
Has there ever before been such a inundation of opinion-based "knowledge" and anti intellectualism? And how did our ancestors leave it behind? Is it the product of first-world apathy?
>>463275
Are you gonna answer any questions?
>>463275
What are the major problems with JTB?
Is a dissolution of power possible?
What was the structure of the predetermination of social categories prior to the normal?
Wu wei?
what's your position when it comes to philosophy of perception
eg, directrealist/idealist/etc
>>463275
can i have fries with that?
>>463596
Well, considering all of reality might be a lie fed to us by a cartesian demon... I would say false knowledge is still knowledge. I see I have two hands. This is knowledge, but it might be a lie my simulation tells me
>>463275
what does it mean for P to be?
is it that P is perceivable?
or that it is conceivable?
and so on
Is it possible to truly answer philosophical questions? I feel like it's so abstract that it's essentially just thought exercises rather than real science. Either that or it would require a higher level of consciousness or some sci-fi jazz like that.
>>463275
do you own a gun and can you use it?
>>463364
>The person who has the knowledge must believe it is true.
what does true means?
>>465181
>than real science.
tell what real science is, what problems science has solved, and why do you consider these problems solved.
>>463275
Ask a gay black Jewish sushi chef anything
>>463275
What are your thoughts on the scholastics and Aquinas?
Have you read this thread >>444270
What are your religious views?
There are two main theories about truth. The first is called the "correspondance theory". This roughly says that prepositions such as "it is raining" is true if they correspond to the facts in the world. Arguably this is the most intuitive theory. The other theory is much more complicated and is associated with Hegel, Thomas Kuhn construcitivsm and so on. That theory focus more on that true prepositions harmonate with other knowledge such as the paradigm you are reasoning within. This last theory will usualy claim that the correspondance theory is faulty becaus there is no way to assertain the facts about the world without, as Kuhn calls it, impregnating them with the theoretical framework you have.
Skepticism and nihilism have in different historical periods been common. But perhaps today is unique in the sense that very many people think they are experts.
>>463275
How's it going for you at Starbucks?
I am afraid I dont know what JTB stands for. When it comes to power and dissolution, if I understand your question correctly, that is an empirical question. Not a conceptually one. And so it belongs more to physics or social science.
The last question is arguably also historical or sociological. However, most philosophers are to a certain degree social constructivists.
>>463609
>poor /lit/ babby scared by engineers
The world isn't a hugbox you know
Regarding perceptions I belong more or less in the idealists camp. As Hume points out, perceptions as such dont imply that there exists anything other then perceptions. My view of x dont point to an actual x. Ofcourse we have to asume it for the sake of living, and our psycology is such that we cant help but asume it. Some people think that this count as a counterargument to scepticism or strong idealism, but I disagree on that.
>>463275
How will you comfort yourself when you suddenly realize that the only paying job you can get is sorting mail and bringing coffee to guys that studied natural sciences, economies or law.
The theories about what it means for P to be are more or less analogous to the theories about truth. Some think that there are objective entities out in the world wich our prepositions more or less corresponds to, and others think that notions such as "mass" are constructed.
Most philosophers nowdays dont frame the question as whether something need to be perceivable or conceivable. What matters if wether something exists for all or is true for all, not if it is objective for the individual mind. This is an obscure point, but it correlates with the change in focus from individual rationality to intersubjective communication and rationality.
It is hard to give final answers to philosophical problems. But a alot of the questions that the greeks and medieval people wondered about are now, for all practical purposes, solved or dissolved into new ones.
>>465558
t. alberto barbosa
>>465419
I have read very little about scholastics and Aquinas. I can only say they are far out from mainstream philosophy.
I have not read that thread.
I am an atheist or perhaps agnostic.
>>465558
I have never heard of them
>>465569
My goal is to get a job at the university. If that doesen't work out I could be a teacher at highschool.
>>463275
Will you get a job ?
what do you think of atheism?
>>463364
>justified true belief
look up Gettier problems, imo they fatally undermine this as the definition of knowledge
>>463585
Not OP. Knowledge is a belief someone holds to be true.
>>465528
>That theory focus more on that true prepositions harmonate with other knowledge such as the paradigm you are reasoning within. This last theory will usualy claim that the correspondance theory is faulty becaus there is no way to assertain the facts about the world without, as Kuhn calls it, impregnating them with the theoretical framework you have.
so a statement is to be put inside a story about the world and if people accept that the statement fits well inside the narrative, then the statement is true/ is knowledge ?
PLEASE CITE BACK WHEN YOU REPLY
If philosophy wants to be relevant and respected, it needs to step up its game. It shouldn't be placed at a higher standard because of historical context, if it doesn't make a relevant addition to our current culture and society, it should drop from schools.
It's the duty of philosophy to prove it has space in the world of today, adding something with meaning and value.
Psychology for a while suffered from this, but the recent discoveries in cognitive science, and other areas, made it relevant and a credible tool of knowledge. Obviously Mathematics and other "hard sciences" have their place not only because of how complex they are in their knowledge, but the constant contributes to our society.
Then you have some areas like sociology and anthropology, and I'm not sure how relevant and worth of time they really are. It's just applied psychology, with doubtful researchers which seem to to fit their narrative in describing the world around, and not the other way around. Why study small tribes in Indonesia? Why are they relevant, and not the big, long and successful civilizations throughout history?
You could say that if a field is just another applied field it loses its meaning, and you can argue than psychology is just applied biology, but in this case the smaller field has a much, much broader line of knowledge! Because of concepts such as subjectivity, consciousness and self awareness, there's vast more trills of knowledge than it's "mother" field.
So, the ball is in philosophy to be relevant, and not the other way around.
Why is that the current state of philosophy, as in the last 30 years or so has been so dry? Baudrillard and Foucault were examples of extremely influential and provocative that came out not too long ago? Why have we not had people come along that have shaken things up like that?
Who do you believe are the most important contemporary philosophers, the ones that will still be relevant in 50 years?
>>466029
>the constant contributes to our society.
yes, they contribute to the hedonism of most people, in easing their lives and improving their pleasure. But the scientists in hard sciences still cannot tell why they ask for money in order to do what they want to do. nobody knows why a few people do physics, and it certainly not for discovering truths about the reality. nobody knows why some people do biology, beyond ''saving lives, because human lives matter'', nobody knows why some do geology, chemistry and so on, besides saying that it helps the humanity.
in what does it help the humanity ? in improving our daily life, that's all.
thanks science for making humanity better hedonists.
>>465862
I believe 1+1=6 to be true, is this knowledge?
Can I have a number 5 with a Sprite?
What's your opinion on the problem of induction?
Why don't rich people get into the arts and philosophy anymore, like they used to? Why doesn't today's upper class produce anything of aesthetic merit like some members of the old aristocracies did?
>>466178
>Why don't rich people get into the arts and philosophy anymore, like they used to?
Because they've all been deluded by the pseudo-knowledge of economics
>>466178
Because the aristocratic class has been so indoctrinated with slave culture that they end up thinking like a slave.
On the off chance that you're a continental do you know of any good departments in particular?
>>466349
slave culture?
>>466456
slave culture as in the Nietzschean term. The rich people DO get into philosophy but the philosophy society values is the philosophy of slaves. Is it any wonder than the rich people want to make society "more equal"? The rich people also do get into the arts but the arts too are used to celebrate such values.
>>463619
They didn't. Knowledge in the past was vastly more opinion-based than it is now, due to the lack of the scientific method and much less rigorous standards for what constitutes "proof".
Religion aside, these days a great deal of knowledge about the world is as close to objective as possible, and is backed with hard data and experiments. Of course there is still opinion-based stuff, especially in areas like ethics that can't really be objectively analyzed, and there are also people who choose to ignore the data in favor of their own opinions, but on the whole it's much better than in the past. The vast majority of "knowledge" from the past, even that which we now know to be correct, at the time would not pass contemporary standards for being proven.
>>466227
>Turin Shroud
Not endorsed by the Catholic Church.
>the miracles at Sokółka and Lanciano
Too easy to fake. Houdini can do better "miracles". Add it to the graph
>>465593
>mainstream philosophy
how does a master student at a university not know about philosophers that are taught to students taking an elective class at a community college?
>>463783
>I see I have two hands. This is knowledge, but it might be a lie my simulation tells me
This is just silly; if this where true then you would have to accept that you would have knowledge about something I lied to you about.
>>467269
Not him, but I find it quite plausible that a Master's student, when describing herself as 'having read very little about' eg the scholastics, might well be referring to a level of knowledge well beyond that attained by those taking the elective class.
>>467269
There's two places Aquinas would be discussed.
1. Entry level classes that basically teach you one philosopher a day and try to cram as many names in the course as possible.
2. Extremely specialized theology courses.
Aquinas isn't exactly relevant for anything other than theology. People like to mention him because he was very influential in his time and he's a good way of adding diversity to roster of philosophers, since most philosophers work is entirely secular.
>>465593
Would you be able to give that thread a look over and give your opinion on the discussion there?
>>466521
>due to the lack of the scientific method and much less rigorous standards for what constitutes "proof".
outside of formal deductive language, nobody knows what is a proof.
>>468488
If they haven't read Lakatos, get their ass out of here.
>>466151
Yes. Reality is socially constructed. Knowledge is just whatever you tell yourself is knowledge.
>>463364
>the person must be justified in believing it is true.
So in order to know....You must know that you know that you know that you know that you know that you know?
What is the view of the "comparative philosophy"? Between the east and the west.
Is there any legitimacy to their work or is it just bunk?
What do I need to do before entering grad school for philosophy? I am a history major (my school does not have a philosophy major) and planning to go into graduate school for philosophy.
>>468730
>What do I need to do before entering grad school for philosophy?
BA (Phil)
>I am a history major
Grad Dip. (Phil)
