Does /his/ agree with pic related?
Has philosophy really been made obsolete by science?
Nope. If anything, science raises even more philosophical questions.
>>883392
Nope.
Science can only dig ever deeper, but the issue is, there's turtle's all the way down.
>>883392
Not even close. Nobody cares about finding aliums if dindus are surrounding your neighborhood/nation etc.
>>883400
this
>"why does the earth exist"
>the galaxy is discovered
>"why does the galaxy exist"
>the universe is discovered
>"ok what the FUCK does all this mean"
>>883392
Nah senpai, that's positivist arrogance right there. Science relies on unfalsifiable basic assumptions.
>>883416
And how does philosophy protect me from dindus?
>>883422
Have you ever considered that it means nothing? That reality exists independently of humans?
>>883436
yes, and that (philosophical) idea seems to grow the more we know
>>883423
>Science relies on unfalsifiable basic assumptions
What, like 1 + 1 = 2?
>>883464
like gravity silly. it has properties but where does it come from besides "muh invisible attraction"?
>>883413
*tips Rusellian fedora*
>>883425
it protects you from BEING a dindu
>muh western education
>>883485
It arises as a property of 4D space time, have a bit of a look at the Ricci tensor and it becomes quite apparent.
>>883485
"I can't understand things so I trivialize and oversimplify them to make my fear of death less apparent"
>>883485
Gravity is literally just things falling down.
>>883392
Stephen Hawking is an autistic philistine, so no.
>>883516
that's not what this is. literally.
>>883392
>uses philosophy via philosophical questions
>"le philosophy is dead :D:D"
>>883516
>Gravity is literally just things falling down.
Ok Aristotle.
>>883517
Sure we can. The existence of gravitational waves was confirmed just a few months ago.
>>883547
Nah senpai just nah
>>883552
Great argument convincing/10
>>883517
Theoretical physics masters student here, you're either full of shit or are used to talking to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
> it makes it another theory
Wait nevermind, you're talking out your ass and have no notion of what constitutes a scientific theory, you're confusing it with a hypothesis.
The classical notions of the universe are based on Euclidean geometry, the ideal that space is flat and time is continuous. Turns out that when you skip past the ancient greeks and get towards 1800s mathematics you get lagrangians and in particular noether's theorem (Every differential symmetry has a conserved quantity). We find that the conserved quantity for time translation is energy while the conserved quantity for space translation is momentum.
Next we take a look at that metric again and find that (in incredibly oversimplified terms) objects are coupled to the metric via the energy component of their four vector, given this is (again oversimplifying for non physics people) related to time translation we start getting time dilation and the other (what would be considered intuitively to humans) fucked up properties of GR.
This coupling of the energy and the metric can be visualised as a deformation in 4D spacetime (well people like to imagine 2D sheet deforming, again this is imprecise but is the only way to explain what happening on to normies who dont know what a reimann manifold is), the deformations of the metric propagate throughout the spacetime (as confirmed recently by gravity waves, as predicted in the theory a century ago) and influence other objects around them which react to this curvature by being drawn closer (given we have not yet observed negative masses or energies the coupling may only be attractive).
If you want the full description without the hand waving I suggest you read a textbook on general relativity, A.Zee. has a nice one that caters for normies while Sean Caroll is the current standard.
>>883560
i don't have to be convinced of your heresy. it's been shown already
>>883392
1. Formal Logic has no use.
2. Things that have no use can said to be "dead".
3. Therefore, formal logic is dead.
Dear Peers, review please, thank you!
>>883572
>the deformations of the metric propagate throughout the spacetime
How is that mathematically possible? I mean if time is already encoded in spacetime, you cannot have time-dependent oscillations of a function of spacetime.
>>883614
Yes you can, propagations translate spatially as you vary the time dimension of the spacetime just as you can have oscillations in the y direction of an x-y plane with no problems.
>>883614
>>883631
(Also note that the language I'm using here is dumbed down as fuck and will likely give a few misconceptions, but not dumbing it down makes it unreadable for everyone else. Welcome to the problem of science education where you pick between teaching people some things that are wrong or teaching them nothing at all)
>>883631
So they're not oscillations in spacetime, but only in space?
>>883614
It isn't easy to think of something so mathematical through non-mathematical arguments.
I add adler's general relativity to the list anon gave.
GR becomes easier to understand when you stop dissociating space and time and just think of two as a 4- dimensional space like a spherical surface is 2-dimensional
>>883677
>GR becomes easier to understand when you stop dissociating space and time and just think of two as a 4- dimensional space like a spherical surface is 2-dimensional
I know, but in the case of oscillations we are forced to give time a special role, because oscillations are quantities which change in time.
>>883638
Ok, fuck it, let's do some maths. As ever we set c = 1 and save ourselves a headache with the constants.
We're going to start with a black hole and move it a little bit, then observe what happens at some distant point.
ds^2 = (1 - r_s / r) dt^2 - (1 - r_s / r) ^(-1) dr^2 - r^2 (d theta^2 + sin^2 (theta) d phi^2)
L = (1 - r_s / r)(dt/d sigma)^2 - (1 - r_s / r) ^(-1) (dr/d sigma)^2 - r^2 ((d theta/d sigma)^2 + sin^2 (theta) (d phi/d sigma)^2)
Now by symmetry laws I argue that I can fix theta and sigma because we're assuming a direct trajectory and I can also argue that moving the black hole is equivalent to moving my observer assuming there exist no other objects in the universe (which there dont in this example).
From here we use the lagrangian formalism to get the christoffel symbols given by the geodesic equation
d^2 (x^a) / d tau^2 = - C(a', b c) d x^b / d tau * d x ^c / d tau
From the definition of the 4-velocity we get d u ^a/ d tau = - C(a' , b c) u^b u^c
From these symbols we then find the Ricci curvature tensor
Rab = R(k', akb) = d_k C(k',ba) - d_b C(k',ka) + C(k',kf) C(f',ba) - C(k', bf) C(f',ka)
Trace out a and b to get the Ricci scalar
ricci = 12r_s^2/r^6
This gives you the deviation from the euclidean plane which is only dependant upon r
d(ricci)/dr = -72 r_s^2 r^-7 (where r is measured in units of the distance travelled by the speed of light in one second and measure the distance from a black hole)
So, rather than moving in a flat plane, you'll find that as a black hole moves towards you or vice versa you've got a curvature in the spacetime to deal with that changes depending on the distance between you and the black hole.
>>883781
>>883638
>>883781
Next we consider a pair of orbiting black holes, when you draw a line from yourself to the point at the centre of their orbit (assuming you are far away from them), we can consider two easy cases, either both black holes lie along this line (in which case you have ricci = 12r_s^2(1/r_1^2 + 1/r_2^6) or the path between the two black holes is orthogonal to your line (ricci = 24 r_s^2 / r_3^6)
So now as the black holes revolve around each other, the curvature of space time at your point oscillates between those two values, at your point you observe gravity waves.
The next question you might ask is "where does the energy to osciallate the space time come from" and the answer is that those black holes are radiating the energy. In the observation of gravity waves two black holes of around 35 solar masses joined to give a resulting black hole of 68 solar masses, two suns worth of energy were radiated to shake spacetime such that we could detect a difference of 10^-21m in a 3km detector on earth across some ludicrous distance from the pair of black holes.
>>883781
Wait, where does the sigma come from in the Lagrangian?
It's been a long time since I dealed with this kind of stuff.
Science is philosophy. The idea of a dichotomy is retarded.
That said, science has rendered pretty much all other branches of philosophy obsolete by virtue of the fact that it's ridiculously more effective at accurately describing the world.
>>883797
Sigma is your placeholder variable for some frame of reference, if you pick sigma = tau then you get the proper time. Boost to whatever frame you require.
>>883464
Godel's incompleteness theorem m8
>>883793
Thank you. As far as I understood, you derived the Ricci curvature as a function of r. So you know its value at every point in space now. But where does the time dependence appear?
>>883823
Information theory, every point in space doesn't get that value of r immediately but after a delay given by the speed of light.
>>883831
Okay, I'm beginning to understand.
Science can only tell us "How are we here" not "Why we are here."
There is a difference.
>>883809
Assuming that theorem is correct (there is some contention and I personally haven't take a side), that only demonstrates that mathematics is an incomplete representation of exact solutions, it doesn't demonstrate that mathematics and physics cannot provide either approximate solutions to arbitrary precision (which is what physics does), nor does it render mathematics or physics unfalsifiable.
In fact all it does is assert the lack of existence of a proof that confirms or rejects the godel sentence, the rest of the class of functions within a given set of arithmetic operations are still valid, it's a proof of the incompleteness of mathematics, not the incorrectness or unfalsifiability of it.
>>883809
Who are you? Kripke? fuck off with the godel references.
>>883485
You seem to be convinced that gravity is a "thing," which it isn't. Gravity is a consequence of the existence of energy (and by extension, mass) and its effect on spacetime.
Things are attracted to each other because the energy contained in them warps space, with the consequence that they "roll" toward each other through the compounding warping effect they exert.
>>883799
>the world
only physics, chemistry, etc
>>883873
I'm dealing with the topic while responding to another person, this anon wanted to know about gravity so I taught this anon about gravity, if you want to discuss the topic then here's my input.
In some aspects (particularly quantum mechanics and neurodynamics) philosophy needs to either catch the fuck up or get the fuck over itself. In other aspects it's completely unrelated to science and non overlapping magesteria and all that stuff. It's still an incredibly useful tool for discussing rather abstract concepts, but it is no longer the dominant method by which we attempt to find out how the universe works.
>>883799
>That said, science has rendered pretty much all other branches of philosophy obsolete by virtue of the fact that it's ridiculously more effective at accurately describing the world.
LOL
>>883857
Where are you getting approximations from?
One of the things you can't prove is that the given arithmetic system is consistent.
>>883799
>the fact that it's ridiculously more effective at accurately describing the world.
Why should anyone get out of bed in the morning
>>883838
Here you go anon, have a shitty gif describing the above.
>>883951
Nice.
>>883925
You cannot prove a system is consistent, you can only disprove it if it claims to be consistent or if it is inconsistent, it doesn't invalidate that a consistent system may exist or that for an inconsistent global system there does not exist a consistent subset.
The approximations argument gets rid of people who like to point out that science should be invalid because it is impossible to prove that a given statement is true from evidence rather than pure logic.
>>883847
There is no why
>>883965
So would you say the claim 1+1=2 is falsifiable or not?
It's fundamentally outside the scope of mathematics to claim that it is consistent. If you can only disprove the system's consistency it would appear the answer is no.
>>883966
>I'm 15
>>883799
>That said, science has rendered pretty much all other branches of philosophy obsolete by virtue of the fact that it's ridiculously more effective at accurately describing the world.
Am I the only one who still moral philosophy around here? Also, we can look at modern science as an outgrowth of metaphysics, describing what the universe is. In a pure descriptive sense science has far outgrown its parent discipline, excepting perhaps the eternal "why" (so gravity can be proven by maths coupled with the observed nature of spacetime, but why are we in such a universe) and the problems of knowledge and of induction a la Descare and Hume respectively. Where I think it gets interesting, though, is where both science and the above philosophical problems intersect with morality. So data tells us X about the world - which actions does that make is "good" or "evil"? We have to have a definition of moral concepts like "good" to answer that question, but how should the definition react to changing discoveries? Do specific facts matter? Why or why not? Furthermore, do concepts or morality overlap at all with the problems of knowledge and induction? Does that uncertainty about the universe affect what is "good", and how?
>>883991
I would say that 1+1=2 is falsifiable under some systems of mathematics and an axiom in other systems, for example if I look at just category theory then the notions of '1', or addition simply dont exist, while the natural integers can be generated by 0 and 1 (or -1), which also provides a basis for the operations of addition (which 0 provides an identity operation) and multiplication (for which 1 provides an identity operation) and their inverses.
Mathematics holds its assumptions and axioms even more dearly than philosophy does and to attempt to generalise some argument to all of mathematics requires more work than you seem to realise.
>>883809
>>883857
Literally fucking retards. Goedel's theorems only states that formal systems are either inconsistent or incomplete. The usual ZF or ZFC axioms of set theory is anything but inconsistent, and literally no one except the logicians care about the statement that makes ZFC incomplete, let along physicists.
>>884068
>and if physicists don't care about it, why should we
>fuck logicians
>>884068
(Anon, you do realise that I was arguing that it godel is inapplicable to physics)
>>884121
>Science isn't superior to philosophy as a source of objective truth
No, but it's strictly superior to philosophy when it comes to (a) getting shit done, and (b) getting answers that are correct to the current precision of our measurement instruments, which is the closest approximation that it is possible to get to objective truth.
At this point philosophy has done fuck all by comparison, the fact that you're even making that claim while using the internet just makes your post a work of art. (Which is funny, considering which faculty philosophy falls under)
>>884121
1+1 = 2 is an objective truth within the mathematical axioms of an ordered set of non-finite integers that contains both addition and multiplication, as for whether it applies to the universe, the last time I had one of a thing and another one of a thing and called it two of a thing, I think I had two of a thing.
It just so happens that certain components of the universe can be represented as an ordered set of non-finite integers that contains both addition and multiplication.
>>884150
>(a) getting shit done
Agreed
>(b) getting answers that are correct to the current precision of our measurement instruments, which is the closest approximation that it is possible to get to objective truth
Strongly disagree, and asserting this is unbecoming of someone who acts as a proponent of science. Don't make science into anything other than it is. The claim that it gets us closer to "objective truth" is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim, which philosophy already addressed centuries ago.
>>883516
WRONG
4D CURVED SPACE TIME
GO LEARN JEWISH PHYSICS NOW
>>884121
You're goddamn stupid. Science does not have the same foundation as mathematics. Science uses mathematical objects to describe reality, and it is this connection of mathematics and reality that science is based upon.
>>884150
You're even more of a moron
> non-finite integers
Non of the integers are finite
>the last time I had one of a thing and another one of a thing and called it two of a thing, I think I had two of a thing.
You're damn stupid if you think mathematics is based on physical observations. The natural numbers are constructed from nested sets of empty sets and the Peano axioms, they have literally no connection to physical reality. It's this connection that you have to accept that is the leap of faith, not the axioms of set theory themselves.
>>884015
Great argument.
Does there need to be a why. Are you really that I secure?
>>884150
No one said otherwise on a and b are you fucking stupid?
We all know 1+1=2. The thrust of the argument is that at a certain point the concept of what can we meaningfully say with precision without resorting to "it's obvious" and we have stumbled into >philosophy.
And it's only an objective truth in the common meaning of those words if your way of picking axioms is known to be one that makes sense and cannot result in a contradiction, which none of them are.
-first step is inductive; with what you see, what you feel, you fix a system, then, by association and differentiation, you discriminate between systems which behave like your system, and systems which do not behave like you system [the definition of a system is bogus of course, since the system is literally putting, at least, spatial and temporal boundaries to get an ''event'' (people love to take seriously space and time, they cannot think outside space and time)+ giving this event other qualities that the system is supposed to bear]
induction serves, at the very least, to tie things/events/phenomena together through the concept of identity (or its opposite, of difference). instead of induction here, you can talk about abstractions, but they are the same things : to group things together and/or to differentiate between things.
-you continue your induction/abstraction (and frankly, you cannot even do anything else in your life; it is too difficult to stop having faith in your inductions), in saying that, since two systems behave the same so far, they must have a few qualities which are the same
-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities [which ties things together, which create the system] above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want it to leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)
-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))
>>884266
if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-realist).
Why do people crave the deductive reasonings and its various formalizations ?
Because deductions are seen as ''falling form the sky''.
deductions are seen as necessary. deductions are seen as ''impossible to refute, because they are not personal, but are external therefore leading you to objectivity, universality, truths, reality''
Why do people cling to objectivity, universality, truths, reality ?
Because they do not know how to live without these fantasies which bring them comfort and a sense of control.
people dislike and pains and the typical reaction when your life sucks is to ask ''why me? why my life sucks and others seem to manage well?''. In one word, you see the existence as a bunch of necessary events and a bunch of contingent events, then you choose to escape these contingencies, obtain pleasing necessities, leave displeasing necessities.
What the fantasy of control brings you ? it brings you faith, by induction, that you life will stop sucking if you think for a bit.
You want your life to improve, so you cling to the fantasy of having abstractions which will bring you sustained pleasures.
>>884020
But 1 plus 1 with no additional modifiers implies positive 1 plus positive 1 anon. It's a language
>>883912
>only physics, chemistry, etc
Yeah, the world. That's what I said.
>>884316
people exist in the world too you know
actually they're way more prominent from a human perspective than electron orbitals and black holes and that shit
>>884267
>Why do people crave the deductive reasonings and its various formalizations
People enjoy not dying of botulism. Strange but true.
>>884018
What leads you to assume that good, evil, and meaning exist in any capacity beyond human interaction? We developed those concepts as a consequence of being social creatures who have both personal and group desires.
You can't debate the moral superiority of one element over another, unless you want to spew nonsense. At a certain level, you can morally examine a person, but the examination breaks down the closer you look. A sociopath, for example, would be considered "evil" by many people, for the opinions they hold and the actions they often take. The physiological differences between the brains of sociopaths and average people are stark enough to be studied and regularly identified. But what makes one brain more evil than another? The atoms that comprise the molecules in the brain are the same variety of atoms. The cells are the same kind of cells. The difference between the two is the patterns that those cells adopt and the concentrations of various neurotransmitters within them. However, those patterns and concentrations only matter in the context of large-scale human society. A sociopath can survive in isolation just as easily as a standard person. A small group of sociopaths may even fare better than a standard counterpart, but in larger groups, altruism becomes more vital, and the sociopaths are destabilized by selfishness.
But what "good" is inherent to thriving human society? An Earth dominated by humanity is practically indistinguishable to one where the common ancestor of mankind was stepped on by an elephant, speaking from any perspective outside the orbit of the Moon.
>>884328
What do you think people are made of?
>>884388
mostly thoughts and drives actually
>>884402
And what do you think generates those thoughts and drives?
>>884416
>dude neurology tells me so much about the human experience i can't wait until the singularity
>>884434
Devolved into memes like everything else.
>>884448
memes are the only worthy response to some reductionist dipshit
>>884452
Have fun living on the surface
Note how "why are we here?" can mean two different things based on what you mean by "why". Does it mean the sequence of events that have caused our current situation (science can answer this) or does it mean the purpose of our existence or if such a purpose exists at all (science cannot answer this). What philosophy has over science is that it consists of value judgments - what something means and what should we do. Science is simply a tool in that process and never its own ends (science spawned out of philosophy for this purpose). You can be one of the those myopic science fanatics, but at the end of the day you'll have to create or answer to a philosophy. To say philosophy is dead is to be simply vocalize you don't know what's going on in your own brain.
>>884494
>it consists of value judgments
Holding opinions is not an achievement.
>you don't know what's going on in your own brain.
hurr durr what is neuroscience
>>884494
>you don't know what's going on in your own brain
Really now?
>>884498
What a completely retarded and pointless reply.
Why does it matter if "holding opinions is not an achievement" to what I said? Despite it not mattering, you are still very wrong, because opinions can definitely be achievements. Are you completely oblivious to the history of philosophy or the fact we have a history of philosophy? Appealing or novel thoughts can lead to great success and status through recognition. They can also be used (by others even) as the foundation of great actions or institutions (e.g., political systems, art movements).
And whether something is an achievement or not depends on opinions!
While your answer is retarded (since you totally misunderstood what I was saying with that "brain" line), the question of neuroscience should be answered I guess. Neuroscience can only show us physical representations of what happens in our brains. It can't replace existence, as we feel it. Although we can "master" our knowledge of the brain, optimistic though that may be, it will always be us experiencing that data second-handed. We will still be making value judgments about that data, thus, still engaging in philosophy. Science remains a tool for philosophy even with the science of thinking - because philosophy IS thinking.
To say philosophy is dead then, is to say you don't realize you are thinking and making value judgments. Hence, you do not know what's going on in your own brain. It's not just flickers of mental activity, but thinking in the form of "existence". "Existence" will always be realer to us than any data; that's subjectivity for you.
>>883392
Scientifically speaking, you will die.
On that assumption, one can deduce life is pointless.
Scientifically speaking, you should either commit suicide or make absolutely no effort to keep yourself alive.
If you do not agree with the above statement, anon, you have become philosophy.
>>884559
>Scientifically speaking, you will die.
Really? How so?
>>884559
>On that assumption, one can deduce life is pointless
This does not follow from the above.
>>884015
bopped
>>884543
Good post
>>884580
Very well. I will elaborate:
Your life will end. That much is an estabilished fact. No advancement on medicine or other areas of science can change that.
Since your life will end, you will not reap anything that you sow, no matter how good a life you led.
Since anything you do is pointless, life by scientifical parameters must also be pointless.
>Scientifically speaking, you should either commit suicide or make absolutely no effort to keep yourself alive.
>>884630
>you will not reap anything that you sow, no matter how good a life you led.
>Since anything you do is pointless, life by scientifical parameters must also be pointless.
Define "reap what you sow", "pointless" and "scientifical parameters".
Isn't science and all scientific conclusions inevitably based upon faith?
>>884630
Immortality and transcending our current dimensions has not been falsified.
For all we know we could one day get to a higher plane of existence.
Hard to say it's pointless if there is an eventual end.
>>884634
If you tear it down to its most foundational principles. Also faith is not the same as asuming or guessing certain principles about the universe in the sense that only fedora Nieztche fanboys will tell you that it means then that science is a religion.
>>884652
Do the fedora Nietzsche fanboys tell that to the fedora science atheist fanboys?
>>884659
>Do the fedora Nietzsche fanboys tell that to the fedora science atheist fanboys?
That describes most of the philosophy threads here.
>>884633
Science is completely based on deductive reasoning.
The only reliable source of deduction is observation.
All observation stem from your senses.
Your senses are your only source of observation.
When you die, you will lose your senses (unless you are religious, but that's a completely different monster).
Since you lose your senses, any observation becomes impossible.
Since any observation becomes impossible, deductive reasoning and, by extension, science becomes impossible.
If science becomes impossible with death, then life is scientifically pointless.
Whew. That was tiresome. Happy now, anon?
>>884652
>that only fedora Nieztche fanboys will tell you that it means then that science is a religion.
I've been lurking all these /sci/ related threads on /his/ for weeks now and have written a good amount of the posts asserting Nietzsche's stance, and not once have I or anyone that I've seen said anything even remotely like that.
>>884670
Then you are not looking hard enough senpai
>>884665
>Science is completely based on deductive reasoning.
>The only reliable source of deduction is observation.
w h a t
>>884673
Maybe, I don't scan the catalog daily. But in the bigger threads I haven't seen it. I was accused of saying something like that though, even though I wasn't, so right now I'm under the impression that it's just an exaggeration.
>>884665
>Science is completely based on deductive reasoning.
Incorrect. Science is also significantly based on induction and empiricism. In fact, this is the basis of much Rationalist critique of science, in thst they find induction and empiricism to be unreliable.
>The only reliable source of deduction is observation.
Incorrect. Deduction need not involve observation directly. It is a useful source of premises, but soundness is separate from validity.
>All observation stem from your senses.
Depends on your definition of "senses." For example, is a mental simulation a sense?
>Your senses are your only source of observation.
See above.
>If science becomes impossible with death, then life is scientifically pointless.
Incorrect. You are saying death remotes the ability to do science in the future, but this does not mean science done in the present or past (during life) becomes useless. This also assumes that the point of life is to do science, which is similarly unsubstantiated.
>But don't you get it? By critiquing my logic, you have done philosophy!
Not necessarily. I contested your definitions and methodology, which are firmly within the bounds of regular scientific inquiry, even if this particular exchange falls outside those bounds. To say it is only in the domain of philosophy would require reverting the definition of science to "natural philosophy" and would simply shift the discussion, not resolve it.
>>884676
Yea a deaf-mute-blind without touch, taste, feel of balance, feel of acceleration smell quadriplegic can still become the best philosophet amirite?
>>884682
I wish it was an exaggeration, but people say that science is a religion and its not that uncommon. Google it to see some published """"""papers"""""" on the subject.
>>884684
Do you know what deduction is? Do I need senses to deduce 'q' from 'if p then q, p'?
>>884692
If you are born deprived from senses, you could never relate any of those concepts.
>>884683
>Science is also significantly based on induction and empiricism.
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations.
>>884692
wait, do you think that the modus ponens does not stem from your choice to take seriously your inductions ?
>>884701
There is a difference between radical emiricism and regular old empiricism. The scientific method makes use of what is practical.
>>884683
>Incorrect. Science is also significantly based on induction and empiricism. In fact, this is the basis of much Rationalist critique of science, in thst they find induction and empiricism to be unreliable.
Oh, come on man, that is weak. Induction can be summed up as an indirect form of deduction, but either way, induction also requires observation, wich doesn't change things at all, and empirism boils down to a more direct form of deduction, wich means it is also dependant on observation.
>Incorrect. Deduction need not involve observation directly. It is a useful source of premises, but soundness is separate from validity.
>soundness is separate from validity.
Fucking seriously?
>Depends on your definition of "senses." For example, is a mental simulation a sense?
Mental stimulation is based on sensory feedback, so no senses mean no mental stimulation.
>Incorrect. You are saying death remotes the ability to do science in the future, but this does not mean science done in the present or past (during life) becomes useless. This also assumes that the point of life is to do science, which is similarly unsubstantiated.
Since science will end, doing any science is pointless. Hint: I am baiting you.
>But don't you get it? By critiquing my logic, you have done philosophy!
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
>>884703
exactly, the scientists love to think of themselves as good empiricists, and choose to spend their time trying to connect back their speculations to some empirical world, precisely because they know that their speculations are not meant to fertile, yet they cannot bear not to dwell in their mental proliferations, instead of remaining on pure empiricism which they despise.
>>884709
>Scientists don't dwell in shit that will not add anything to their research
ftfy
>>884705
>fucking really?
Yes, fucking really. If you cannot dismiss "causality doesn't exist, the sun may not actually rise tomorrow!" with "fucking really" then neither can you dismiss corrections of legitimate errors.
>Hint: I am baiting you.
Pretend I said whatever you want me to say to make your point then.
>>884709
Abstracting that an external ball exists thst I throw up and catch provides a useful model I can use to predict when the sensation of holding "something" and not will occur.
Radical empricism does not allow for these predictions.
>>884712
Well any senses that can give you a way to relate language with abstract and concrete objects. Again, a people deprived of any sense can not relate to either the concept of truth or the concept of red because you cannot spontaneously imagine shit.
>>884711
>Yes, fucking really. If you cannot dismiss "causality doesn't exist, the sun may not actually rise tomorrow!" with "fucking really" then neither can you dismiss corrections of legitimate errors.
I do not have to dismiss anything. Basically all you said was: "science does not need to be reliable you know". Treating science as a game of dice is a disservice to both scientists and philosophers alike. Or to anyone really.
>Pretend I said whatever you want me to say to make your point then.
Counterbaiting? I have underestimated you, anon.
>>884719
>Basically all you said was: "science does not need to be reliable you know"
It does not need to be reliable from a philosophical perspective. In fact, from thst perspective it is a haphazard mix of induction, deduction, empiricism, rationalism, skepticism, faith etc. It is positively ugly. However, it is reliable from a practical perspective, in that falsifiable predictions lead to models that accurately predict behaviour.
>>884718
I suppose that's contingently true, so you're probably right, my bad if so. Can you point me to any literature on this?
>>884383
>What leads you to assume that good, evil, and meaning exist in any capacity beyond human interaction?
What leads you to assume they don't? Sure, the way we *experience* "good" is tied up with out existence as social creature, but if "good" is a purely instrumental concept which only exists due to certain flukes of our existence, then you're denying that there really is such a thing as good or evil at all, and going into "all morality is subjective" territory. (If you want to, go for it, but please be clear.)
> An Earth dominated by humanity is practically indistinguishable to one where the common ancestor of mankind was stepped on by an elephant, speaking from any perspective outside the orbit of the Moon.
Indistinguishable physically, sure. But do they have the same moral worth? Is one more meaningful than the other? I'd argue there's some kind of value to humanity being self-aware. It's only through us that any part of the universe is aware of it's own existence.
>>884730
>in that falsifiable predictions lead to models that accurately predict behaviour.
>accurately predict behaviour.
>accurately predict
So unnacurate science's only worth is to allow for accurate science to be performed?
That boils down to accurate science being the only valid science.
>>884630
Why does the fact that our life will inevitably end necessarily mean it is pointless? How is pointlessness a necessary result of finality?
>>884755
>So unnacurate science's only worth is to allow for accurate science to be performed?
>That boils down to accurate science being the only valid science.
Yes, exactly. Of course, nothing is 100% accurate but they are stepping stones approaching a limit.
>>884762
Life is not pointless. Life is scientifically pointless.
>>884764
My point is that accurate science absolutely requires observation. Since accurate science is the only valid science, any valid science requires observation. Ergo, all valid science ends with your death.
>>884768
You conflated a future state with a current state, and confused doing something with what that something implies.
At most, if you would like to find a scientific "point" to life it is to be self-perpetuating, which completely contradicts your position that it suggests suicide.
>>884780
>At most, if you would like to find a scientific "point" to life it is to be self-perpetuating, which completely contradicts your position that it suggests suicide.
>>884665
This. At the moment you die, since you are your only valid source of observation, science ceases to exist.
Unless if, by "self perpetuating", you mean others will pick on where you left off. Why would you work for them, though? you will never reap anything you sow, therefore that act is illogical and antiscientific.
>>884795
>Why would you work for them, though?
The DNA composing your genome are most shared by direct family members, followed by the community. Work either benefits the family and allows shared DNA to propogate at the expense of the individual or benefits the community and allows the community structure that produced specific DNA combinations to propogate. This needn't be direct, and can easily be indirect contributions.
>>884665
I have already pointed out the myriad of problems in this post, not the least of which is confusing "the point of life is to do x" with "x considers x to be the point of life" and the blurring of time frames. That the individual production of scientific knowledge ends at death does not mean that science itself considers the production of scientific knowledge to be the point of life. Nor does a future state imply anything necessarily about a present one.
>>884755
>That boils down to accurate science being the only valid science
Yes..?
>>884810
>The DNA composing your genome are most shared by direct family members, followed by the community. Work either benefits the family and allows shared DNA to propogate at the expense of the individual or benefits the community and allows the community structure that produced specific DNA combinations to propogate. This needn't be direct, and can easily be indirect contributions.
Are you a determinist? If that is so, then not only life, but absolutely everything is pointless.
>I have already pointed out the myriad of problems in this post, not the least of which is confusing "the point of life is to do x" with "x considers x to be the point of life" and the blurring of time frames. That the individual production of scientific knowledge ends at death does not mean that science itself considers the production of scientific knowledge to be the point of life. Nor does a future state imply anything necessarily about a present one.
>That the individual production of scientific knowledge ends at death does not mean that science itself considers the production of scientific knowledge to be the point of life.
That is... actually my point exactly: Since science ceases to exist (from your point of view), science cannot provide you with "the point to life", ergo, life is scientifically pointless.
>>884828
I think there's been a misunderstanding due to poor phrasing. When you say "life is scientifically pointless" what everybody is hearing is "life is pointless; I have proven this with SCIENCE", whereas it sounds like what you mean is "life is pointless as far as science is concerned/as far as science can tell us".
>>884828
I find the common dichotomy between meaningful/pointless is silly, yes. It seems to me that people get so caught up on what is metaphysical pointless or not they miss what is practically pointless or not. However, this conversation isn't about what I believe, rather it is about definitions. The point is, if you probe science for an answer to what the point of life is it is simply to self propogate.
>Since science ceases to exist (from your point of view), science cannot provide you with "the point to life"
You are combining "the point of death" with "the point of life" with this statement. If they are meaningful, they are separate statements.
>"ergo, life is scientifically pointless."
And this logic does not evwn follow from your flawed premises. That science could not supply a meaning to life would not mean that life itself was pointless from a scientific perspective, as there are currently plenty of currently unanswered questions in science (example: which "fundamental forces" are actually fundamental and which are expressions of a more fundamental force? ")
>>884838
>it sounds like what you mean is "life is pointless as far as science is concerned/as far as science can tell us".
Oh... yes, that is true.
To be clearer, though, what i mean is that science as in itself cannot give somebody a reson to live, that must be done by other stuff like philosophy, religion, feels, sports, Street Fighter V, etc.
Thanks for pointing that out, anon.
>>884150
>(b) getting answers that are correct to the current precision of our measurement instruments, which is the closest approximation that it is possible to get to objective truth.
there is no link obvious between predictions, measuring predictions with your fantasy of approximation, and truth.
>>884150
>>1+1 = 2 is an objective truth within the mathematical axioms of an ordered set of non-finite integers
false
formal logic deals with truth values, not truth. And plenty of logics do not care about truth, but about validity of inferences, which is the general motive of formal logicians.
the fact that you choose to conflate truth with truth values shows that you choose to cling to your fantasy of truth and are butthurt once you do not find it.
>>884840
>You are combining "the point of death" with "the point of life" with this statement. If they are meaningful, they are separate statements.
By "point of life" i mean not the moment or location of life, but the reason behind life. I have made no claims about "point of death" on that sense.
>"ergo, life is scientifically pointless."
You are your only valid source of scientific knowledge. Since, from your point of view, science ceases to exist with deat, science cannot provide you with a reason to live.
To phrase it better: Your life is scientifically pointless to yourself.
>>884795
>science ceases to exist.
so you pretend to be rigorous, but you are not...
science does not exist. what you have is people doing scientific activities.
>>883422
String theory
>>884905
>but the reason behind life
Then death is no longer the deciding factor, as there can be a reason "behind" life unto itself that is not subservient to eventual death of a given individual.
>Since, from your point of view, science ceases to exist with deat, science cannot provide you with a reason to live.
You just claimed that you made no claims as to the point of death. But yet you focus all of life on that point? The fact of the matter is, you have yet to link "science has yet to answer what the point to life is" with "science answers that there is no point tonlife" given that we have the provisional explanation that biologically life exists to perpetuate life. You also have yet to link the idea that a failure to find a point to life necessarily implies suicide is a necessary or desirable state. But mostly, you continue to assert but have never proven that "death's inability to do x means x finds life pointless." Continually putting off these questions fools nobody and are clear evidence you merely wish to assert objections without substance behind them.
>>884917
>so you pretend to be rigorous, but you are not...
Forgive me, senpai!
>>884938
Oh fuck off, I can't be bothered to argue with you any more. Read a fucking book.
>>884948
I have read plenty, thank you. Perhaps you should read any introductory Philosophy of Science textbook before ranting about all of its already-addressed "shortcomings"
>>884938
>Then death is no longer the deciding factor, as there can be a reason "behind" life unto itself that is not subservient to eventual death of a given individual.
Precisely. It is possible to find a reason to live that is not
>subservient to eventual death of a given individual.
However, since science ceases to exist (again, at your point of view), then science cannot provide you with a reason to live on your eventual death. Ergo, science cannot provide you with a reason to live.
Also, that guy there: >>884948
It isn't me. It is a troll. Kill it with fire.
I am leaving. My position has been compromised.
This was fun while it lasted. Pleasure arguing with you, anon.
>>884968
>However, since science ceases to exist (again, at your point of view), then science cannot provide you with a reason to live on your eventual death. Ergo, science cannot provide you with a reason to live.
Again, "x is not applicable after death" != "x implies x is the reason for life." If you delve exclusively into science for a reason for living, gene theory provides a very suscintct and elegant explanation.
>>883436
It's weird, because at the same time at the pop-philosophy level, humans are now the center of everything now.
>>883497
Holy shit this. Look at any 'civilization' that has failed to produce any philosophy of note. They are universally shit.
>>884985
Like the Roman empire?
even physicists at cambridge show their stupidity in their communication
Well, yes and no. Philosophy in Greek times dealt in part with more prosaic questions about the constitution of reality, in addition to questions of morality, ethics, metaphysics and so on. Since then, in some respects, science has clearly supplanted philosophy - obviously today few would argue that philosophy is better than science for telling you what the atomic makeup of wood is, even though in Greek times that would have been a question for philosophy (not that they had a developed atomic theory, of course).
On the other hand, science is not very helpful in questions of morality, aesthetics and ethics, and philosophy is also very useful in figuring out what problems science should be solving, as well as interpreting the meaning of scientific solutions.
I suppose if you think that philosophy is just about staring at the sky and wondering "where did we come from", then philosophy is dead, yes.
>>885926
>obviously today few would argue that philosophy is better than science for telling you what the atomic makeup of wood is, even though in Greek times that would have been a question for philosophy (not that they had a developed atomic theory, of course).
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about wood is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their maths is more than conventions inside a formal languages.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement remains very dubious)
>>884543
So you say holding opinions equates to "doing philosophy"? Then the word "philosophy" itself becomes meaningless and redundant. If every person is a philosopher, merely by the fact that he's a human being, then philosophy is trivial and not worth mentioning.
>>884634
Science and faith are opposites.
>>885937
Yes I realize that, I'm just saying that there are some ways in which science is more appropriate than philosophy for producing a practical understanding of reality. That's not a criticism of philosophy, and it doesn't negate the fact that some people have entirely too much faith in science.
>>885953
Found the undergrad
>>885754
>Holding opinions is all we can do
In science we discover FACTS. Facts are objective and hence better than opinions.
>>885950
Philosophy is essentially just the practice of being able to fully understand and rationally support your opinions. I don't know if I'd say that's a trivial or easy skill to genuinely develop.
>>885961
>rationally support
But in the end they are still just opinions and not facts. Take ethics for example. You can pull as many pseudo-arguments out of your ass as you want, but finally you'll have to admit that you're just arguing for your own subjective emotional preferences.
>>885967
In the specific case of moral philosophy, sure. That doesn't negate the importance of morality.
In other areas of philosophy, that's not so much the case. "I think, I am", for instance, is not an emotionally charged statement. Moral philosophy is opinion-based in the sense that there is no objective source for morality, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid discipline (although of course it's not valid in the scientific sense)
Philosophy was the word we used to describe humans trying to figure out how the world worked for thousands of years. Eventually we refined techniques and began to develop the natural sciences as we know them. Using observation and testing we determined everything boiled down to physical laws. Science now dominates how humanity understands the world. Philosophy is a necessary part of understanding how we got to the natural sciences.
"Philosophy" is not innately useful because it is stupidly broad and is basically synonymous with "the study of". It was relevant when there was only one degree to get, but specialization has made discussing the relevance of ALL of philosophy asinine.
STEM fags stupidly claim philosophy is pointless and philosophy fags use the mere relevance of one branch of philosophy to justify the relevance of whatever bullshit they choose to spout.
>>885958
Science doesn't discover facts. Only philosophy can explain why, which it has, back in the 19th century.
>>886217
Philosophy hasn't ever explained a single "why". In the meantime science has produced a lot of objective truths.
>>886225
Stop being a retard just for kicks. You know damn well you have no clue what you're talking about.
>>886241
>hurr durr look at me, I'm projecting
Still waiting for you to post an actual argument.
>>886247
>Still waiting for you to post an actual argument.
It was already made for me. It's called "study the Greeks and then Friedrich Nietzsche." But, you will probably not do that, since you don't really care about the topic on hand, just about frustrating other users across the internet.
>>883392
The philosophical position being presented cannot hold if it's premise is true.
No, science is a branch and the natural development of philosophy. Or as it was called before it wanted to be all cool and rebellious, 'natural philosophy'.
You can change your name but you cannot change your inheritance.
>>883400
Questions that philosophy can't answer.
>>886262
>study the Greeks
I read them and only cringed at their primitive ways of thinking.
>and then Friedrich Nietzsche
I read him as well. Was a pretty nice read actually. However he is not evidence for your claim. He does not produce an objective answer to a "why", and never claims to have any. Perhaps you should read him yourself instead of posting stale memes?
>>886285
your bait was decent till this post. Now it feels like a big tryhard.
>>886285
>I read them and only cringed at their primitive ways of thinking.
You didn't understand them at all then. Many of the old Greeks like Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus etc. are resounding philosophical archetypes that continue to reappear in humanity to this today. Thales' concept of the nature of matter being water, for instance, being one of the original philosophical conceptions of a world unity, all things as one (water being a rough poetic expression of this)—you still see individuals talking about this, thousands of years later.
The point of reading the Greeks also obviously completely eluded you. Philosophy begins in Greece. You do not approach anything without starting with the basics; that is how you establish your foundation. It is naive, ignorant, and foolish to blindly throw yourself into a field that has any hundreds of individuals participating in for thousands of years only towards the end (i.e. the most recent) of its development. It works this way with more or less all other fields, philosophy is no exception.
>He does not produce an objective answer to a "why", and never claims to have any.
>objective answer
Please start from the beginning again, you are clearly clueless or confused about what philosophy is. And you clearly did not understand Nietzsche very well.
I'll say it again: the claim that science deals at all with "objective truths" i.e. facts is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim. The discussion is philosophical in nature, and it was a subject of discussion for hundreds of years, ending with Nietzsche.
>>886292
You just got fucking #rekt by someone who actually knows what she's talking about.
>>886285
B-but stale memes is what we do here
>>886351
>Many of the old Greeks like Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus etc
The presocratics are okay, I admit that. I thought you were talking about Plato and Aristotle, who are shit tier.
>you are clearly clueless or confused about what philosophy is
Nope, I was merely correcting the idiot who claimed philosophy would answer "why".
>And you clearly did not understand Nietzsche very well.
Projection?
>the claim that science deals at all with "objective truths" i.e. facts is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim
No, it's just common sense. Observations are objective. The table in front of me is objectively a talbe and exists objectively. No amount of sophistry can talk it away.
>>886398
>Observations are objective.
This is false.
>>886406
>many different finely tuned devices all providing the same data isn't objective.
Nothing is objective then.
>>886389
I just arrived m8.
also someone that claims
>I read them and only cringed at their primitive ways of thinking.
is rekting himself not me. His epistemology understanding makes me cringe.
>>886413
That is true.
>>886406
By quoting me, you just confirmed that observations are objective. You proved that I OBJECTIVELY posted the sentence "Observations are objective." and you were able to observe my post.
Check fucking mate.
>>886419
Which is why it's an absurd definition of objective. Objective is meant to simply contrast the word subjective.
>>886414
>epistemology understanding
I studied a STEM subject. The scientific method and math pretty much SOLVED all of epistemology.
I am going to insist that people finally stop mistaking philosophical la- borers and scientific men in general for philosophers, – that here, of all places, people be strict about giving “each his due” and not too much to the one, and much too little to the other. In the course of his education, the genuine philosopher might have been required to stand on each of the steps where his servants, the philosophical scientific laborers, have come to a stop, – have had to come to a stop. Perhaps the philosopher has had to be a critic and a skeptic and a dogmatist and historian and, moreover, a poet and collector and traveler and guesser of riddles and moralist and seer and “free spirit” and practically everything, in order to run through the range of human values and value feelings and be able to gaze with many eyes and consciences from the heights into every distance, from the depths up to every height, from the corner onto every expanse. But all these are only preconditions for his task: the task itself has another will, – it calls for him to create values.
>>886420
You subjectively posted something false that I called you out on. In your case, if I had a computer that had to translate words into my language, your assertion would be doubly false.
>>886428
STEM here too. And I disagree.
>>886425
Three witnesses to a car accident. Two don't agree on color, two don't agree on the genders of the drivers, none agree on the time of day.
Are their observations objective?
>>886398
>Observations are objective.
This was a philosophical claim made long long ago, more recently by thinkers of the Enlightenment. Nietzsche squashed it, and since then we have come to understand that subject and object have a reciprocal interdependence and thus to speak of them as opposites is the less accurate, outdated interpretation of things.
Seriously, dude. You gotta read more.
>>886428
>Trusting math after Godel's theorem.
>>886442
Yet you objectively observed my post.
>>886443
My STEM is bigger than yours. You're wrong.
>>886449
>two don't agree on the genders of the drivers
Tumblr pls go.
>>886459
If you claim that observations are not objective, you are literally a solipsistic schizophrenic and denying reality. Did you hurt your head while trying to walk through walls because you denied their objective existence?
>>884768
You know nothing about Godels theorem.
>>886470
Unless you're doing research in formal logic, you won't ever get in touch with Gödel shit in math.
>>886501
I subjectively observed your post. I come prewired with all sorts of assumptions and preconditions that you're unaware of. So what you posted has no connection to what I think you mean when you posted it.
Filters. It's all about filters.
>>886503
My STEM has its own zip code. I win.
>>886507
Is that not an excellent point you just made? You may see Caitlin Jenner as a woman, while he's still mentally ill Bruce Jenner, a man, to me. And if he chops his dick off, he's still a man to me, just a mutilated man.
>>886535
Yet, irregardless of your idiotic misinterpretations, I objectively wrote the sentence you (wrongly) disagree with.
>>886542
No, it only shows that most philosophical problems are simple definition problems and semantics.
>>886548
I missunderestimated you.
>>886542
Without philosophy we wouldn't even have this "transgender" bullshit. This is only pushed by philosophy departments. From a scientific point of view, the gender question is solved by looking at chromosomes.
>>886523
I really like this post.
>>886563
subunderrated post
I wouldn't have a problem with philosophers if they could get their head out of their ass once in a while and stop thinking that people of other areas don't dwell into their shitty epistemological problems. I think everyone in my Lab class understood the problem of induction and stopped making absolute claims in their reports; it is really not that difficult and limiting as philosophers claim. We also deal with why we choose to """belive"""" this over that and it us not some stupid muh math discussion and I doubt any philosopher would actually understand why we choose to believe in a universe thag behaves that way at certain precision and scale. It is basic to understand this and every scientist with a PhD I know understands this, they just don't call it philosophy considering that philosophers just keot saying that we are evul corporate robots who cannot think beyond a formula sheet (which is more cringy that rustling).
>>883392
Science has created more question than it his solved.
In so far as philosophy goes.
The endless search for knowledge, and enlightenment goes on.
>>886523
Are you serious?
>>886125
Shameless bump.
>>886638
I like to think of it as a circle. What we know is on the inside of the circle, and what we don't know is the circumference of the circle.
The more we know, the bigger the circle gets, the bigger the circumference gets, and so the more we don't know.
>>886638
There are many fields where philosophy lost its authority to science.
There is not a single field where science lost its authority to philosophy.
>>886641
yes
>>886684
B-But quantum fields and observation and particles knowing when they are being looked at and shit. Like, woah!
>>886684
>There is not a single field where science lost its authority to philosophy.
Ethics, the arts, value orientation in general. But science never had authority on these, so I guess you could say that your statement is correct.
>>886684
This so much
>>886708
>But science never had authority on these
Neither did philosophy. Philosophers don't have authority on ethics or aesthetics. A philosophy degree or knowledge of philosophical books doesn't make you more qualified to hold purely subjective opinions. Every nigger on the street can tell you what he subjectively prefers to do or to see, and thus hold a view on ethics or aesthetics.
>>886225
>Philosophy hasn't ever explained a single "why"
But Nietzsche explained THE "why" of life itself: power.
>>886719
Philosophy is ridiculously broad. Literally ridiculously. It has its fingers in everything. The natural sciences used to be wholly regarded as philosophy until they proved themselves to be immensely superior to all other forms of philosophy for understanding the world.
So I wouldn't say philosophy never had its fingers in ethics and aesthetics.
>>886722
>power
Why?
>>886719
> Every nigger on the street can tell you what he subjectively prefers to do or to see, and thus hold a view on ethics or aesthetics.
All shifts in ethical movements have rode in on the wings of philosophy. In the larger scale what the average person on the street thinks about ethics is just a derivative of some ethical movement in the past. If you listen to people who have no background in philosophy try to talk about a subject they will just end up parroting some idea of the past (say utilitarianism). The average person unconsciously absorbs the ideas of the great thinkers of the past, until their ideas are accepted as being self-evident.
That's the beauty of philosophical way of dominating the world.
>>886737
Because power is ultimately the most basic form of anything. Every action is an expression of the Will to Power, with the goal always being more power.
>>886719
>Every nigger on the street can tell you what he subjectively prefers to do or to see, and thus hold a view on ethics or aesthetics.
And you would be as uneducated and useless as them to equate their views with the views on these subjects from someone like a serious, genuine philosopher.
>>886708
Ethics? Solved by science.
>>886756
So purpose requires continued life, power is required to protect life, therefore the basest purpose is to acquire the power necessary to survive?
>>886743
But that doesn't actually happen. Maybe we divide ourselves into groups that share our viewpoints, but that doesn't mean those groups represent fully, or for that matter any ethical system, our own personal views.
>>886743
This is just demagogy and not philosophy. 100 years ago people were told its ethical to hate jews. Today we are being told its ethical to hate whites. How? By means of propaganda, indoctrination, brainwashing. Philosophy plays only a minor role here. Its mostly perverted games for the amusement and profit of those in power.
>>886757
How is a "philosopher" more qualified to have subjective emotional preferences?
>>886756
Well, that's only broadening what you mean by power. How does producing successful offsprings give you power in the same way as money (or in an underlying way).
>>886797
I was just addressing his point expecting a clearer explanation. You just make yourself look weak.
>>886797
Ethics is just "muh feelings". Do you like something? Then it's ethical (for you!). Do you dislike something? Then it's unethical (for you!).
>>886762
The subjective morality of an atheist.
Pass.
>>886807
>100 years ago people were told its ethical to hate jews. Today we are being told its ethical to hate whites.
You really don't know what "ethics" is.
>>886811
Tell me what it is, and I'll prove you wrong.
>>886789
A genuine philosopher is one who has studied all of the past, gathered all of its conclusions, adopted the greatest of those conclusions, overcame the less great ones with this modern, wholesome insight of their study, and thereby proceeded to create new values for the future. So, you can go ahead and try to argue all you want that some dumb street thug from the ghetto who dropped out of high school and can barely even read has views on the arts and value orientation that are equal to the views of such a monolithic individual as a philosopher like Nietzsche all you want, but to everyone who isn't as retarded as these braindead monkeys, you only appear as much a laughingstock as they are.
>>886809
>Ethics is just "muh feelings". Do you like something? Then it's ethical (for you!). Do you dislike something? Then it's unethical (for you!).
Why do you hate a subject that you don't know anything about? Shouldn't you at least read an encyclopedia article about it? This is the problem with some people who have a science fetish. You criticize something without having knowledge of even what it is.
>>886831
You didn't answer my question. How does being book-smart qualify someone to claim a higher authority on issues of SUBJECTIVE value judgement?
>>886811
Im not him
>>886838
I answered your question, and you just rephrased it. Go fuck yourself.
>>886833
Why do you assume I have to be ignorant, only because you don't like the truth I posted?
>>886838
>SUBJECTIVE value judgement
That insertion of 'subjective' is pretty redundant if you have already have 'value judgement'.
>>886848
No, you didn't. You merely repeated your assumption of "hurr durr it should be obvious that an educated person has moe authority than a nigger ... even on issues of purely subjective opinions without objective basis". You are claiming that someone who read certain books and says "I like X and I disliky Y" is automatically better than a nigger who says "I like Z and I dislike W", even when X,Y,Z,W are matters of incomparable subjective taste. You're nothing but a racist, narcissistic fedoratard.
>>886849
Because it is not the truth, idiot.
This thread just caused me to hate Fedoras that worship science more.
>>886831
The presumptuousness of this post is offensive.
>>886871
Why?
>>886882
>worship science
Still butthurt that rigorous observation doesn't support your pet theory about reality?
>>886882
>Muh enlightenment from my own intelligence is being oppressed by scientism
>>886882
accepting science's truth =/= worshipping science
The only fedoras ITT are the science denying philosophists.
>>886899
>science's truth
Will be always subject to epistemic rigor.
