First day of philosophy class

That isn’t philosophical at all. What philosophy or philosopher are you using to justify that?

pretty sure i read somewhere that chocolate has thingies that activate the things in the brain that make you feel good so that's pretty scientifically open and shut i think

>scientifically
Sorry I missed the whole part where you justified it philosophically

Merleau-Ponty

>Wow, so I have to philosophically justify my subjective opinion that chocolate tastes good?
It is not a subjective opinion. If this is valid, then it would mean it is not subjective and that differing opinions speak to a matter of something being pathologically wrong with the individual, i.e. he/she may lack the neurological developments needed to perceive and assess it. The same way many of the masses lack the ability to discern melody which their "opinions" on music, is like a blind man opining on artwork.
You're just low IQ.

Attached: smart grugg.png (800x450, 133K)

id tazed gud

Why do I need to site a pre-existing philosophy to say that people enjoy endorphins? Also science is a sound basis for argumentation. Its argumentation from logos if you like. This is all scientists are doing when they're writing research papers. Making arguments appealing to logos.

>I like it because it makes me feel good

Wow, so hard

science is a philosphpy

It actually is subjective you utter brainlet. If eat chocolate to the point of it making you sick multiple times, the next time you eat chocolate you will think it tastes bad. Or perhaps I have eaten many foods which are richer than chocolate. Chocolate in comparison to these rich foods isn’t good.

OP too stupid to realize he needs the philosophy course.

The ontological sufficiency of a scientific explanation is most definitely a philosophical argument, brainlet.

Philosophy is art. Science is not art. Therefore Science cannot be philosophy.

Cool.

>materialism isn't philosophy

Attached: 1509181931627.png (645x729, 80K)

>Philosophy is art.
But it's not. Maybe you should pay attention to your philosophy course.

Define philosophy

>. If eat chocolate to the point of it making you sick multiple times, the next time you eat chocolate you will think it tastes bad.
This demonstrates the development of an aversion from classical conditioning, which is a biased opinion tainted by a corrupt experience.
>Or perhaps I have eaten many foods which are richer than chocolate. Chocolate in comparison to these rich foods isn’t good.
Then people who likewise have eaten these many foods which are richer than chocolate should perceive the same.

The ability to perceive taste and aesthetics is objective. Bad tastes and aesthetics are a sign of neurological or mental deficiencies.

>it’s scientifically open and shut
>oh wait I meant to say we like chocolate because of materialism not science

Attached: 7551D493-12B7-4F48-9676-81A2DEC04B49.png (461x514, 598K)

>Philosophy is art
By any modern definition of "art," no.

Wew... I don't even know how to begin to address this. I think you need to crack open your philosophy textbook.

>The ability to perceive taste and aesthetics is objective. Bad tastes and aesthetics are a sign of neurological or mental deficiencies.
Actually it is collective. Sociological experiments have proven this. People will agree with other people simply not to disagree or to be the odd one out.

If it is science why can’t it ever prove anything

Attached: 8B60C76C-164C-4B55-83D2-BDB09C82EEF1.jpg (1067x600, 47K)

>the ability to perceive tastes is objective
How can we account for differences in taste then? One person may like chocolate slightly too much, and eat it slightly too frequently, while another might hate chocolate, and refuse it when offered. Neither of these instances indicates a "mental deficiency" and neither of these people is objectively wrong for failing to perceive the other's good or bad taste.

It's neither you fucking moron. Not everything is either "art" or "science."

If philosophy isn’t art why do I have an MA in Philosophy?

Attached: 6E2AA5F6-46B9-414A-A922-F10652EDA142.jpg (710x515, 41K)

Try doing some reading about how modern scientific theory was developed.

You don't have a master's in anything.

Because the "liberal arts" are not actually art. You can get a BA in the sciences too, including psychology, but psychology, whatever it is, is not art.

lol @ this thread

OP complaining that he's gonna have to justify liking chocolate to his retard professor isn't philosophy either yet here we all are

>Also science is a sound basis for argumentation
Whew boy - - - you need to catch up with philosophy of science.

De gustibus does it, now that wasn't so hard was it user?

His position is that it's biological based on the body seeking fats/sugars. that is a philosophical argument.

Taste of chocolate give me pleasure
Pleasure is good
Therefore, the taste of chocolate is good
This shit isn’t hard brainlet

Actual philosophy is about getting down to the truth, and has little to do with opinion. In my opinion that professor is a retard

Truth is imperceptible. Philosophy is just exchange of opinions.

Can he philosophically justify that opinion?

meta as fuck

Yes, my child, give in to pyrrhonism

What is good? - goodness in itself?
How does good manifest itself in chocolate?

... that is literally the opposite of what Merleau-Ponty want to say

No one has ever needed a philosophy course. Philosophy, like art, is what humans do to pass the time once all of their needs are actually met.

Yeesh

The attempt to define a phenomenon or phenomenon(s) as accurately as possible

Postmodernism as a philosophy is parody of itself. I'll never understand how anyone who is not underage takes it seriously.

>phenomenon
whose term exactly? kant or husserl?

Things can only be justified within a criteria that is ultimately arbitrary.

Your teacher is retarded then, sorry OP. Philosophy is all about being willing to accept that you could be wrong about anything and everything, and so having a willingness to entertain ideas without necessarily accepting them.

Easy. Just say that you find [insert opinion] aesthetically pleasing and beauty is what you value the most.
Beauty is the most divine thing on earth. Order stands in defiance of entropy. And beaty is patterns and therefore order. The creation of life itself requires very specific conditions and is therefore unlikely, yet it happened. Aesthetics like a are a reflection and imitation of those unlikely circumstances. Therefore beauty is divine and whatever opinion I have is justified because I arrange all my thinking so that it pleases my sense of aesthetics.

Attached: 02f.jpg (655x527, 36K)

Don't get hung up on every little thing the teacher says, especially in an intro class. Also, don't have any expectations, you will learn more this way.

>Pleasure is good
Is it?

It's irrelevant right now, that post was just an example of a philosophical justification.

Sounds like science me boy

Imagine a philosopher who is a materialist in regards to metaphysics and an empiricist in regards to epistemology. An easy enough person to imagine i'd say. You can say he is a scientist, as his views are aligned with most other scientists, but he is clearly also a philosopher. Since scientists necessarily hold the same views of philosophers who align with them, and not all philosophers align with scientists, then we can conclude that science is indeed superseded by, and exists within, philosophy.

How are you unable to understand that science is essentially a branch of philosophy? The ontological arguments that science relies on didn't just magically appear in the minds of people.

You are like a little kid

Attached: images.jpg (218x231, 12K)