What is /lit/s response to STEMfags who call philosophy pointless opinions of idiotic people?
>>7859691
Ignore them. Why do you care what other people think about philosophy? Do you read literature to influence the opinions of other people, or to educate yourself on different subjects?
Life is too short to care what other people think, dude.
>>7859691
philosophy is goof for understanding how ideology operates, influencing power structures in society. it's good at understanding culture and all it's subjective biases and prejudices.
science is good at studying physical nature from an objective and impartial perspective, helping create technologies and services that can be of use to mankind.
BOTH are necessary to any serious scholar or thinker. they are the yin to each other's yang.
>>7859702
*good; its
>>7859691
"Can you pay for my rent"
t. STEM student
They tend to be carrot-chasers who will die wondering why they started a family, and they will find no satisfying answer before their spoiled kid intentionally trips over the life support plug so they can get their grubby dab-covered hands on daddy's money so they can start their own dispensary after liquidating daddy's company and the wife, god the wife, will have to spend her days listening to voicemails from her degenerate sons as they suck off a vape like they once did her nipple and tell her that they need a little more money so that they can supply the dispensary's publicly available toilets with japanese automated toilet covers because one of them will have an equally worthless girlfriend with dyed green hair he met at a stoner metal concert who really says she wants those warmed seated to help sooth the herpes zit she has on her buttock and they'll tell all of this to their mother, giggling and coughing, and she'll sink back into her seat and begin to cry and wonder why her husband didn't start with the greeks
>>7859717
Ayy
>>7859717
What if I'm both STEM/philosophy. Write how my life will pan out please
>>7859722
you will be in perfect balance with the world and yourself. and yet you will be despised in philosophical circles for being too scientific and you will be despised in scientific circles for being too philosophical. you will be outcast everywhere and by everyone.
>>7859717
you sir are a poet.
>>7859722
faggot striver poor
>>7859728
holy fucking shit. are you a prophet? pretty much how it goes, couldn't have described it that well if i tried
>>7859722
You'll be there lying in bed staring at the ceiling and your husband (it's okay) will be old and bearded next to you slowly stroking your hand and weeping because he knows the love of his life will soon be gone and knowing this he will ask you all shaky "why did we meet if would only lead to you dying next to me in bed?" and you will answer him without breaking your gaze at the ceiling and you will tell him "because something else might have happened but didn't, and that is really the only answer you can reach when you consider the uncountable number of ways this could be different, that I could already be dead, or you a hundred years older than me, or this universe too hot for life to develop in, and that is why we must recognize that this life, this reality, is not ours because we already belong to the reality" and he'll be crying again all wondering what you mean and he'll ask "where are you going" and you'll say "anywhere but here" and you'll choke and die on your own black lung as he cradles your head and kisses your cheek.
>>7859730
nah don't think so
>>7859734
Madres del dio
>>7859734
not that philosophical fuck
>>7859743
that's the irony of it
it will be a thought a thousand before you have had, and a thousand after you will have
it will mean nothing
you'll die a philosopher at heart, just not in flesh
>>7859746
gone over my head again, its too poetic
i'll probably just stick to the maths
>>7859753
Lol can't u read??
It says you'll have sticky kid fingers if u do
>>7859691
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 infertile, yet they cannot bear not to dwell in their mental proliferations, instead of remaining on pure empiricism which they despise (they think they would get bored).
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. Empircism, in science, is here for the scientists to feel justify to claim that ''if my little deductive model is verified through my measurement, then my model describe some part of the universe'').
Induction is meant to fail, which leads people to have faith in refutability: if it does not work once, it will never work, which is still inductive, therefore completely dubious .
On the contrary, 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.
scientists know that their concepts and abstractions are purely induction, but they still cling to their formalization, this is why they choose to stuff their models with as many deductions as possible. scientists choose to think that, contrary to the inductions which are seen, by them, as personal, contingent, dirty, the deductions are less personal, cleaner, objective.
Since scientists and other rationalists have no justification of their claims, they choose the path of the (intellectual) terrorism in claiming that ''only the religious sheep and the degenerate empiricists, skeptics, relativists, solipsists do not agree with us; plus science give us rockets and cars and computers... see how science is good ! less pains and better pleasures for everyone, thanks to us, the good rationalists ! Science totally works guys, we are spot on defiling empiricism with our rationalism, trust us !''.
so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:
-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you, because the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position
>>7859756
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) 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 inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
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 itself remains very dubious)
the conclusion is that
-no knowledge will be gained from your speculations, labelled scientific or religious or philosophical.
precisely because your imagination is not really meant to be connected back from your five senses.
Scientists and any rationalist choose to think that a few of their favourite speculations, mental proliferations will lead them to truth about the world, will be ''validated empirically'' (after they invent the notion of ''validation'').
Why? because Scientists are hedonistic and love their hedonism. hedonistic people live through entertainment, which brings the most pleasures with the least discomfort. hedonism is the nihilism and most people rely on their speculations about the future, from the past experiences, to enhance their hedonism.
-the notion of irreversibility, necessity, certainty is present in pure empiricism, but the rationalists despise this, because, being hedonistic, they choose to think that empiricism leads you to boredom and sterility (to reach certainty). This is not the case, empirically, since as soon as you no longer care about what you think, you access a new world, free of speculations, where for once you no longer rely on induction (nor on the fantasy of deduction). You are concious directly of what people would call ''knowledge''.
>>7859755
>sticky kid fingers
what does tat even mean
>>7859762
not that guy, but... c-can you pee on me please?
>>7859691
>>7859771
*pees on you*
>>7859789
thank you so much for this.
>>7859792
enjoy, big boy :3 rawr
>>7859717
Why did the herpes zit gf speak to me above all else
>>7859734
John Green tier
>>7859812
That's you in the future, buddy
I guess you'll have a John Green tier life
no reply, continued journey
As a philosophy major, I get hit with this a lot. I usually pull a Lebowski and say "Yeah, well, that's, just, like, your opinion, man..." Usually they don't get the reference and think I'm stoned (not that I'm not) and then laugh at me and call me names.
>>7859722
Anakin.
They're right but I don't care.
>>7859812
ahah nice
>>7859691
Tell them to gb2reddit. I do this irl.
all my friends are stem majors, mostly programmers.in five years they'll probably be stuck in an over sutured job market full of other faceless virtual construction workers while i'm in my 8th year of school also out of work but mos likely losing more money than they are. thats my most feasible best case scenario
>>7859904
>they'll probably be stuck in an over sutured job market full of other faceless virtual construction workers
They won't be, though. Programmers have always been in demand and there is no reason to think that it will change any time soon. But seeing how jealous you are, I can understand why this thought might be comforting to you.
>>7859691
nah
>>7859936
that was just mean desu
>>7859691
Switching a stem major, philosophy fag
>humans are good at pattern recognition which is generalization in a way.human nature is problematic.we need to evolve.
This the solution to the cultural conflicts that is going on in europe due to the immigration ,according to a 28 yrs old software engineer,who's also a militant atheist.
Why are you guys always so fucking insecure about your interests? You can't visit any slightly arts centric board on 4chan without regularly seeing people whine about STEM and trying to find some ways to establish superiority over them. Grow a little more confidence in yourself no matter what profession you choose.
>>7859756
Um, you do know that in science the experiment is the most important? We "cling" to our speculations because our speculations are consistent with experimental evidence and we need them to do things. You can't launch a rocket into orbit by being given pictures of falling apples and recalling seeing something explode. What's the point of pure empiricism?
>>7859972
if you're insecure about something and you want to express it anonymously this is one place you can do it BFD
>>7859760
>the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance
You're conflating a concept (proper name, really) with its referent. Mathematical models tell you squat about "the world"; they tell things about the world. Sex is not made out of three symbols concatenated together, for sex is an activity. Wrap the word "sex" around quotes, like I just did, apply the negation of the aforementioned predicate, "is not made out of three symbols concatenated together", and it yields something true: ""Sex" is made out of three symbols concatenated together.". Learn the difference.
Furthermore, what is an inductive concept? This is unclear.
Even though scientists rely on mathematical models to tell them about the world, their faith in the models (let economics slide here) is perfectly justified, since there exists a correspondence between the world and the mathematical models that describe it, yielding undeniable and reasonably accurate (some fields are more accurate in their measurements than others) predictions.
The rest is just a wall of vague word salad.
I don't care giving an answer to such people. I could educate them but they have to be willing to, and they surely aren't.
Anyway, I doubt such an individual has accomplished a brilliant career in academia. I hold myself a B.Sc in mathematics and the kind you describe rarely had good grades and mostly ended up dropping the courses. Most successful students, in addition to professors, were eager to discuss philosophy and many were well-read in languages, classics or foreign literature. The STEM/arts schism is—in my opinion—a myth.
>>7859972
Maybe It's because the mainstream sci field which is dominated by chronic fedora tippers does the same to a much greater degree while being immensely more arrogant and dismissive.
And you have to admit that they are the one that is dominating our culture at this point.
Inb4 insecure about my academic path.
I am a STEM student myself.
"McDonald's is still a job!"
>>7859691
90% of the people that claim that aren't actual STEMfags and are still in secondary school so I tend to ignore them.
>>7859691
Tell them I'm in finance and have a trust and make more money and have more time to read Phil and cultivate a well rounded life but that I appreciate their efforts and respect their work because "someone needs to do it I guess, just glad it's not me".
>>7859995
You write like a fedora.
>>7860112
Why do you say so? I admit I sound a bit condescending but when I mean “educate”, I mean teaching them on matters they admit to know nothing about.
>>7860116
>I hold myself
>the kind you describe
>in addition to
> -in my opinion-
It's tryhard af and you're not pulling off the sophisticated feel.
Also the fact you've asked me why I think you write like a fedora instead of just calling me a faggot is fucking gay, you faggot.
>>7859997
I honestly don't see that as often. I'm sure there's giggles at gender studies but this culture is dominated by individualism and "follow your dreams", "you can be whatever you want" and "don't be a drone/robot" sentiments.
Most of the mockery is for studying arts/literature/film because you like consuming it rather than working in the field in my experience.
>>7860139
Mh… Okay. I don't see what's wrong but if you say so…
>>7859691
Easiest question I've gotten all day.
Ayn Rand answered it about fifty years ago:
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html
>>7860192
I don't think it is Individualism as much as it is controlled hedonism,self idolatry and materialism.And these can be seen in the worldview of those i mentioned too.
I say this because i have hardly ever encountered any true individualists irl.Those who claims to be one are collectivists of progressive values and ideals in general .
I mean look at all those who are representing the STEM field in the pop culture and their massive fanbase,you will see why they talk shit about us STEMfags here.
"How many philosophical works have you studied to be able to come to such a conclusion?"
>>7859702
i'll agree to this
any faggot who went to uni and only did either of the two should not be called educated desu
>>7859702
>philosophy is goof for understanding how ideology operates, influencing power structures in society. it's good at understanding culture and all it's subjective biases and prejudices.
This is what women and brown people think philosophy is about
>>7859936
Programmers have always been in demand, but in the last couple of years the number of computer science majors at American universities, particularly the elite ones, has exploded. Simply having a CS degree used to be a guarantee of a solid salary and options, but that's already no longer the case, and the market will only get more unfavorable as people age and find that their training is somewhat out of date.
Genius-tier programmers will always be sought after, but the "get a CS degree and join the upper-middle class" gravy train is pretty much over.
>>7860342
Kek spot on.
>>7860515
Inb4 poo to the loo.
This is even worse in my country(india) .I don't know whether i am right ,but it might be possible that we produces the most engineers in the world.Which is why we also have a shit tons of them sitting at home unemployed or working in a completely different field.
The new atheists among us are the ones who complete their engineering degree(3-4 years) then get's a job and then have no relation with the academia afterwards.
>>7860515
Somebody that "simply" (you say it as if a CS degree entails something worthless, non-marketable, and so on) has a CS degree from a top school is still in a better position, odds-wise, than those that didn't attend a top school, because interviews at top companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. have their emphasis on theory. Put two and two together.
However, if you're not in a top school, your best bet is to read Cormen et al cover to cover, internalize it all, build something, and publish it. Building your portfolio and honing your abstract reasoning skills as a programmer should be your priorities. Good foundation in theory is what differentiates the good and the employable from mere, as it were, 'code monkeys'.
> their training is somewhat out of date.
This is false though. What you learn in your CS classes, if you'd care to pay any attention to them at all, is the stuff you'll want to know throughout your career as an engineer/programmer. The math doesn't change. If your grasp of formal languages, algorithm design and analysis, etc., is solid, picking up all the new and fashionable 'industry' languages and frameworks shouldn't be too hard.
>>7859962
missed the point
>>7859691
STEMfag reporting in. We don't think that. We don't even all think one thing. There are plenty of religious scientists. All of the sciences have been twisted toward any number of religions and philosophical predispositions by any number of people. What we object to is that when you do this, you not only have no idea what you're talking about, you don't know what it would even sound like to know what you were talking about. You have no idea how unoriginal you are. You have no idea the full implications of the words you throw around so proudly. You have no idea how many people have already said more or less what you're saying, and how many people have disputed them with varying degrees of validity, but never empiricality. It's not that we think philosophy has no place or point, but that when you use it to try and pretend to have answers to life and the structure of the universe and how morality and behavior should be shaped within, you sound like children and should be dismissed as such. Hence, dismissive remarks about how you're stupid and ect. Philosophical inquiry is great for building perspective, however you cannot pretend that it's ever led anywhere empirical. For this, you need mathematics.
>>7859691
Philosophy seems pointless to me sometimes. I am just a kid I guess, but it seems like fucking obnoxious complex babble that I don't give a shit about. What use does it have towards society? Does it all boil down into individual personal spiritualism?
the greatest intellectual giants of all time
>idiotic
well developed thought have neither value nor place
>>7859691
They can't into full thinking. If you only focus on abstract or concrete thinking, you're not thinking in the fullest sense of the word.
>>7859691
The fact that you have to ask lends some credibility to whoever said that.
philosophy is for rich white people who live in overdeveloped communities and have enough time and resources to devote themselves to mental exhaustion. philosophy has no meaningful use
>>7860996
Go back to the days of Socrates when he would ask people on the streets of Athens what it means to be happy, what is justice to them, what it means to be virtuous.
Do you think it's important to examine these questions for each of us individually, or rather follow blindly the answers that society has given us?
duude, no, it's only partially that (puffs)
the BEST philosophy is all about dismantling, like, the concept of "opinion" itself (and all opinions), revealing supposed knowledge and necessities as the starknude emperors they are, and thus freeing the philosopher from the shackles society puts us all in
and like, okay, may be that's pointless dude, but then so's sciencing and are you gonna quit science? not if youre having fun (BURP)
>>7862071
https://youtu.be/dp8aTYUrPi0
>>7859691
I just want to know why this suddenly became a big thing. It seems like it originated on /his/ about a month or so ago, now it's all over that board, seeping into this board and others.
Why are STEM students suddenly so riled up about philosophy? Or proponents of logic / Analytics suddenly riled up about the Continentals? Does it have to do with Orgy of the Will? Is it a bunch of autistic game playing retards who tried reading it and just got miffed?
Most of them don't seem well read in Continentals' philosophy anyway. Like, at all. Some of them I don't think have even so much as picked up one of their books. They are just adamant on denouncing it as illogical rubbish, as if there was an ulterior motive, or ulterior source to their frustration besides the whole thing.
>>7859936
what about programs written by software?
Software that writes software can write and test many possible solutions and you just have to pay the electricity bill.
the learning is deep in those nets
>>7859691
I'm a CompSci student and I don't think so.
>>7859997
They are competitive and see making money as life's competition and they are told stem is where the money is. So they compete for grades as children and it becomes all about being better than others instead of being the best self.
>>7862408
>likes Continental philosophy and psychoanalysis
>becomes a STEMfag
>nobody understands the way he thinks
HELP ME
