Serious question. It really bothers them.
Pic related--the philosopher who critiqued Descartes's dualist conceptions.
you think she had a problem with "I think therefore I am"?
that was bulletproof
>>29872514
I'm not sure.
But personally I don't think it's as ironclad as it seems at first blush.
(Note that my use of words like "personally", "I", and "think" is should largely be taken as a pragmatic use of linguistic convention, not a metaphysical statement)
>Perhaps a more relevant contention is whether the "I" to which Descartes refers is justified. In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. Apparently, the first scholar who raised the problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought". In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present".[20] The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
I tend to agree with this idea...I don't think there is an enduring "I" that exists independent of one's thoughts.
>>29872287
Because a ton of people, especially males live in constant fear of emasculation. Everything that's not directly connected to physical strength or personal elevation over others is brushed off as "girly," "gay," whatever else. Every person primarily defends itself and everything that challenges your view of yourself is a threat.
I am only interested in Chinese philosophy desu. Western philosophy went to shit when we got existentialism. Especially after ww2 when we got >one is not born a woman
Then again, Kierkegaard sounds alright.
>>29872287
people hate philosophy for 2 main reasons:
1: too stupid to know what it is/how it works. These people will often say things like "science is better than philosophy because science has proof and philosophy is just guessing"
2: too afraid to deal with life's big questions. What are we? What does it mean to be good? how ought we to behave? What has meaning? It's easier for the weak of mind to simply ignore these questions and follow their materialistic hedonism to the grave.
>>29872859
Tell us a bit about Chinese philosophy. I'm sure a lot of us would love to hear about it.
>>29872881
>1: too stupid to know what it is/how it works. These people will often say things like "science is better than philosophy because science has proof and philosophy is just guessing"
I've seen this happen, often on this very board.
>2: too afraid to deal with life's big questions. What are we? What does it mean to be good? how ought we to behave? What has meaning? It's easier for the weak of mind to simply ignore these questions and follow their materialistic hedonism to the grave.
It's depressing, but it also makes me feel very uneasy. I feel like if people don't take the time to think about what it means to be good they'll end up doing bad things and I might end up being the victim of those bad things.
It may seem a little paranoid but I've been screwed over a lot in the past, clearly by people who didn't care about being good people.
It makes me think of Plato's idea, that philosophers should be the ones running things. I wonder if that would be a good idea. It sure seems like it. Not that I agree with Plato on everything, but on that point I think he really had something.
>>29872951
You are a naturally philosophically oriented person, and you are a rarity. The others... we just have to let them think what they will.
Plato was 100% right that only those who seek wisdom and care about what is good should run the show, but it obviously doesn't work that way. I can't think of any way to get them into power.
The only problem I have with philosophy and philosophy students is that it sometimes tries to answer un-questions like "how to live life".
The answer is: Maximising pleasure for yourself while following the golden rule.
Still philosophers will argue if it's not better to live in the woods and eat moss, because "what IS pleasure, if not everything that isn't pleasure, like all the shitty easter philosophy that was put in place to hold up monarchies"
>>29873027
>questions like "how to live life".
The answer is: Maximising pleasure for yourself while following the golden rule.
you're a fucking idiot.
>guys, I solved philosophy all by myself in mommy's basement. look, philosophy means have fun but don't be mean. That's it. I win!
Show us your nobel prize when you get it, ok buddy?
>>29872909
There are tons of Chinese philosophers. The most well know are Confucius, Laozi and Mencius.
TL;DR is that Chinese philosophy focus often on how to create a moral and civilized society. This is why Chinese individualism in traditional thought focus on the duty to family and country. When it comes to individual thought it comes to improve yourself and use this to further promote good.
Basically Chinese philosophers, who for the most part followed the teachings of Confucius thought about how one could destroy degeneracy. This says a lot considering Du Huan called the Arabs degenerate despise strict moral rules in Islam.
Fun fact, Hui Chinese, who are Muslims thinks they are the heirs of Muhammad while every other Muslim is a degenerate for not following Chinese thought.
>>29873089
I think his point was that a bunch of pederasts in ivory towers are solving problems that exist at their own creation.
you cannot solve philosophy, which you knoww, but are... I guess using to dismiss his dismissal of the topic?
He may be an idiot, but pursuing what is objectively good if subjectivity is inescapable could be seen as a waste of time to people who have not already invested time or money into it
>>29873131
>moral and civilized society
>duty family and country
>use individual thought to promote"""good"""
>destroy degeneracy
wait, is this philosophy or sociology? because there is a thin line between promoting thinking and controlling society by these guys
>>29872287
> talk about philosophy to normies
> they're either too dumb or don't know what to say
> try to talk about philosophy on the internet
> get called a fedora
Fuck y'all
>>29873336
Philosophy isn't only limited to existentialism.
Confucianism promote both thinking and control society to genocide bar- I mean promote good deeds and thought
>>29873089
why are philosophy students so hostile towards practical approaches that cut down a majority of their masturbatory thought system.
Just because it is easy and they still falsely associate complexity with worth like a high-school student, therefore it doesn't leave room for them to attach their identity and they lash out?
>>29873333
>He may be an idiot, but pursuing what is objectively good if subjectivity is inescapable could be seen as a waste of time to people who have not already invested time or money into it
What do you mean by "subjectivity" here?
>>29872881
3. Understand it's all just a big meme
>>29873838
perceptive. any pursuit of logic undertaken by philosophers as we(collective humanity) have experienced has occured through the inherently limited scope of human perception and culture. There is no way to sidestep natural limitations in the pursuit of objective knowledge, imo
Philosophy is for nerds.
>>29873808
philosophy students are awful, they are into it just to feel superior and enlightened, you cant talk about philosophy with them, just circlejerk about favorite philosophers like hipsters
t.actual philosopher
>>29873915
I suppose that's true. But, that would apply to science too, wouldn't you say?
>>29874089
it would be true but it doesn't matter because science is means to solve practical tangible questions. Perceptive problems do exist within science, like wavelength of electromagnetism vs size of particle/object to view. If you can't get around it it is a road block. I'm sure on a theoretical side there is probably a bunch of shit with numberology that is beyond current scope.
A scientist working within the method uses available reliable tools of perception.
Scientific ethics exists so you could probably read into it, I am going off assumption, but I'm willing to bet most if not all of them do not dwell on whether the human minds are reliable witnesses of reality, but more on the implications of the field's work
TLDR, You aren't wrong, but it's a core problem for philosophers and more of a white noise for natural science
You can't meaningfully engage with the field without being formally trained in it.
Also, the work required to understand the philosophy of the last century generally isn't worth it.
>>29872287
the human experience seems to be based around maintaining coping mechanisms while experiencing the least amount of cognitive dissonance, something philosophy sabotages
