I just don't understand why people are still reading philosophy or taking stuff like epistemology, ontology...

Look into Paganism. Paganism explained, Varg Vikernes.

>taking stuff like epistemology, ontology, or theology seriously in light of modern science
"Modern science" has its own epistemological and ontological assumptions which, like any sort of such assumptions, are not beyond criticism and are definitely not complete. Your second passage makes me think the entire post is satire, but still do not get caught up on this, I'd rather you respond to my first point.

I know it's bait, but you will genuinely reinforce the beliefs of people who wrongly suspect this to be true and who aren't up to date on the state of any of these fields (whether philosophy or science). It's really very unfortunate that threads like these are endlessly posted

>not Anselm of Aosta
Sage.

Seriously, why are Anglos so fucking retarded? Literally anyone knows about the Proof of Anselm.

>Modern science" has its own epistemological and ontological assumptions which, like any sort of such assumptions, are not beyond criticism and are definitely not complete
science's epistemological assumptions are scientifically informed and confirmed, as is its ontology.

this is due to the fact that when science is refined enough, it is shown that ontology and the like fall in the positive domain scientific induction and it was only lack of the proper level of scientific refinement that compelled epistemology and the rest to be under the administrations of philosophers/priests.

in the exact same way that all medical procedures used to be contained in the office of religion (medicineman, shaman, etc) due to the crude way in which both those things manifested in primordial humanity, now all religious/philosophic points have been reabsorbed back into the realm of science due to the sophistication of the institution. in this reabsorption, most of the dross that had accumulated in the systems and doctrines of epistemology and ontology were burnt away by the rigors of the scientific method, and what remains is simply a continuation of scientifically informed paradigms that are, at basis, wholly scientific models and results of scientific inquiry

Can you flesh out some of the supposed epistemological and ontological positions of "science"?

Why can you philosophy losers just accept reality ffs?

1: All deductions rest on axioms.
2: Scientific knowledge is based on deductions.
3(1,2): Scientific knowledge is based on axioms.
4: Holding an axiom is an act.
5: To motivate an act you need a normative statement.
6(4,5): To motivate holding an axiom you need a normative statement.
7(3,6): To motivate holding our scientific knowledge we need to appeal to a normative premise.
8: Ethics deal with normative premises.
9(8,7): Therefor science needs ethics to justify itself.

>I know it's bait
No, it isn't.

>To motivate an act you need a normative statement.
lol

Have sex.
To explain why you should do an act, you need normative shiet

>The base assumptions of science are supported by science
Do you not see how this is a problem?

Proof of Anselm is pure trash. It is literally "u can't think anything bigger than big G, thus god is true". It is the kind of shit you would imagine coming a reddit fedora typer as a joke.

t.

Attached: image.jpg (439x503, 48K)

your post is the kind of thing I would imagine coming from a reddit fedora typer as a joke

Do actual infinities exist? Does Azathoth? Even the basic premise is demended.

Anselm's proof is fucking based

Because Christians obliterated the idea of a nuanced God with dogma.

I honestly fear you're not intentionally baiting... but I'm not sure.

To be honest, if you're serious there's no way to discuss with you due to your lack of understanding what philosophy is.
You basically take some medieval viewpoints and say: "this is philosophy".
It's like if I said: "How can philosophers take scientists seriously if they really think the world is flat and surrounded by a sphere consisting of fixed stars".

>we have literally proven that consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity and that genes are basically the root of everything that a person is from what color their hair is to what sort of breakfast cereal they will prefer
Nope, "you" didn't. You neither know what consciousness is nor how it corresponds with neurological activity. Nor did you prove how your genes correspond to the breakfast cereal you prefer. For fucks sake you didn't even proof you could use the word "literally" correctly.

It's much more complex than you imagine, you dumbfuck

Based

weird way of spelling "bullshit"

Attached: kek.png (775x387, 27K)

Consciousness has yet to be fully understood or explained. The hard problem of consciousness and it's meta-problem are both still open. I'm sure you're completely ignorant of the philosophy of mind and it's corresponding cognitive science.

youtube.com/watch?v=OsYUWtLQBS0
This talk was given just 3 days ago. Stop shitposting about how science has solved everything.

this is retarded on a level that I don't even know how to begin to respond
do you not realize that acknowledging that all information we can gather is tainted by imperfect senses is a fundamental issue in science? you cant falsify a hypothesis if you aren't even sure your data is accurate.

please do us all a favor and neck yourself, fucking pseud

Attached: kermit_nod.gif (220x151, 72K)

>science's epistemological assumptions are scientifically informed and confirmed, as is its ontology.
This sentence is literal nonsense

Based, you pissy naturalists can keep your little prediction game going, I'll be doing the real work

Attached: drinkypoo.jpg (360x360, 21K)

So we can't accept the basic imperfectness of the medium of knowledge, and still work from and within that system?

>we have literally proven that consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity and that genes are basically the root of everything that a person is from what color their hair is to what sort of breakfast cereal they will prefer

And? What do you do with this information, user? What does it mean? How’s it it relevant? Furthermore, why should anyone care?

If you answered any of these questions, guess what, you used philosophy and not science. Enjoy the cognitive dissonance.

Attached: epeck.png (640x480, 26K)

Justify science experimentally. I’ll wait.

So like what you're saying is that we cannot know nuthin and shit?

That's honestly a great meme. Feel proud of yourself, creator-user. :)

(Neither atheist nor Christian, just sincerely complimenting your drawing)

No, because that's philosophy, and rejects that.
Without philosophy there is nothing.

> I just don't understand why people are still reading philosophy or taking stuff like epistemology, ontology, or theology seriously in light of modern TECHNIQUE. is it just ignorance of the advances?

> everything previously assigned to the domain of philosophy or religion has literally all been explained by TECHNICAL fields such as genetics, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, and physics/theoretical physics. we have literally proven that consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity and that genes are basically the root of everything that a person is from what color their hair is to what sort of breakfast cereal they will prefer

> pic related. the book that convinced me that all non-TECHNICAL systems that attempt an explanation of existence are in their final death throes.

There we go OP, I have unmasked your post for clarity. You know nothing of science.

>t. Jacques Ellul

I think its a love of complexity and intellectual masturbation.
They built this huge, deep, nuanced system, but then science comes with a simpler and more elegant solution, and they admire the complexity of their system too much to simply let it go.

Kinda like a craftsman that insists to keep producing goods manually in a world where the machine makes the same thing (or better) faster.

Imagine there are people out there thinking this seriously.

Ok OP.
Explain to me, empirically, why the universe exists.
I'll wait.

This entire post is deontological, OP. I don’t think you’re one to talk about others ignorance when you’re ripe in it yourself. You can’t escape philosophy because it’s literally just a word referring to different ways people think and the manner by which they get there. A claim about what’s a valid source of truth is a philosophic claim even if it’s directly anti-philosophy. Unless you can put Truth under a microscope and study it empirically, you’re not making a scientific claim. Are you aware of how many anti-philosophy philosophers there are. You’re not saying anything that hasnt already been said a thousand times and is now part of the scholarly canon. We’re past this argument. You might want to look into the Logical Positivists and the Pragmatists and the schools that followed after them if you wanna be intellectually honest with yourself.

It's ok, bro. Keep philosophizing while you flip burgers

imagine how assmad the redditor who made this was

Ah yes because scientists make soooo much money and have sooo many job opportunities.

The normative premise that ethics deals with is moral normative premises. X=X has nothing to do with moral normative premises. The logical deduction is a shitty play on words.

the point is not that scientists make a lot of money, its that philosophers make none

keep doing faux research to meet the predicted results within an overcrowded underfunded group of grad students about some minor bullshit no-one cares about and listening to new Sam Harris podcast wondering why no girl has ever touched you.

>dude science isn’t real lmao

Honestly asking, what is real to you?

>deontological
???
I'm quite sure, that's not the word you wanted to use?!

Don't get me wrong, I kind of agree with you, but in this context that word doesn't make any sense to me at all.

absolutely seething. someone touched a nerve

yeah a little, it also seems conventional to get heated at some point during shitposting discussion. otherwise it's a bit rude.

and what I've said rings correct. See the emotional embarrassments of:
Definitely >I'll wait.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHA SEETHING

>philosophers make none
Oh how wrong you are.

Attached: 1541889098863.png (876x966, 111K)

>consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity and that genes are basically the root of everything that a person is from what color their hair is to what sort of breakfast cereal they will prefer

this is the kind of brainlet trap that shows who has read plato 101 and who hasn't. the conscious soul is expressed through the body, not the other way around, and they aren't one single thing either. taking a person and putting them through a traumatic brain injury or gene modification does not change their soul, it changes how it is expressed

Well I personally hate both sides of this non-debate, and think that science is just a form of philosophy, predominantly involving an empirical dimension, but alongside a conceptual one, and navigating the external world through presuppositions that all philosophies naturally require of themselves. It's really silly to get lost in these petty divisions between STEMoids and Philosophists, who are not at odds, yet both mistake themselves to be.

>soul

>weak bait with loaded language
>reasonable responses also using loaded language on an imageboard
>muh emotional
>muh seething
true image of intellect and wit

this. The whole non-debate reeks of resentment and insecurity. I'm just in here to see faggots turn into overly emotional women.

Philosofags are so funny. It's all based on authority
Who gives a shit about some bullshit a greek made up a trillion years ago?
>soul

Attached: large.jpg (800x450, 61K)

let me know when you come up with a counterargument

If it's such weak bait, why are you falling for it? You are getting awfully emotional over something so weak.

lads, i am afraid that most of those posts are not for real. any sane person with minimal understanding of both knows that they are both necessary for successful human enquiry.

>soul
This is good example of what is referring to. The concept of a soul seems increasingly unnecessary or improbable, yet we keep sticking to it.

>counter argument
>soul

>muh science is just a form of philosophy,
philosotard cope

Everything here is bait, even me, even (You).

How is "Imagine that there are people out there thinking this seriously" falling for a bait?

Well, it's obviously a 12yo trying to be clever.

I would agree with you if the responses weren't so over-emotional. OP is bait obviously, it's a bait that any one of the Christian LARPers would fall right into, but the bait also forces those that fell for it to take the opposing position.

That's just how it works. Scientific materialistic worldview just fits in philosophy along with hundreds of other systems and worldviews.

i thought it's conventional to pretend to get over-emotional over petty trolling on this site just for fun.

Do christians of this website tell their priest about Yea Forums when they confess?

keep saying this and maybe someday someone will believe it

It's growing up in a religious family; fear of the unknown; fear of death; magical thinking; fear of nothingness; fear of meaninglessness; fear of never seeing family and/or loved ones again; fear of punishment (hell); need to know; need for order; attributing inner processes as god/implanted thoughts; attributing meaning to mundane or meaningless things; need for community; need for rituals (prayer/sacrifice/offerings); need for control (through ritual/sacrifice/offerings); need for leadership/guidance (religious texts/priests); need for justice ("evil" people go to hell/suffer karma/etc.); need to be on a team (my Monotheistic religion vs. everyone else); need to feel special (salvation, chosen ones, etc.); need to feel right (my monotheistic religion is correct unlike all other religions); disbelief in the self or one's actions (one or more deities will show me the way); attributing one's one actions as external (blessings); etc.

Note that although they're stated as needs they're really just urges, I grew up as a Christian (external conclusion), born into a Christian family, since I had not reached the conclusion myself (inner conclusion) I eventually found my way out of religion (chronological, comparative religion and critical examination of Bible during periods of doubt stopped my mind from subconscious skipping negative passages which my religious mind ignored or attempted to justify and rationalize away), this same process can work in reverse in the form of those born into other religions or an agnostic or atheistic family (external conclusions) and drawing conclusions (from within, perceived to be as in reality they're just reading things just as I read things and drew conclusions, but because you read things you think about them, so in reality they're external sources mixed with your own thoughts on them) and becoming religious, spiritual, Christian, etc. also teens and outsiders/loners obviously find their way to rebellious attitudes and countercultures, so anything perceived as wrong or outside the mainstream is taken up by these groups.

People think that they're logical most of the time, or that they draw conclusions logically, in the sense that if someone presents something logically to you without error in judgment - the truth - you'll take it as such and internalize it, but people aren't logical, we don't even learn about it in school outside select fields. People draw conclusions (that allow them to change) from within, exclusively, you will never convince anyone to your own internal conclusions through dialogue alone unless you deal with someone who is practically a philosopher, people can be convinced of minor things but not major things. Think back to any moment someone you know changed in a significant and long term or permanent way, had you had similar conversations before yet they remained steadfast in their thought or behavior? What changed? Did they read or watch something on their own volution?

It's a non-response people only use when they get emotional, when something sacred to them has been criticized. And I would calm down, buddy. Maybe get a nice, tall glass of water.

>concept of a soul seems improbable
>entirety of mainstream quantum and particle physics hinges on imaginary ideals in mathematical form
>these imaginary ideals have never been the input or output of any experiment ever, nor ever will be, and are taught as absolute truth and the makeup of the universe

i guess when you break a radio or television set you also break the signal that is transmitted to it lol

you gave away the reasoning for why you don't believe in a soul. the very concept of a soul is not useful to a soulless human that can only verify what he can count as existing

don't make me wait forever smart guy

Philosophy is to science what alchemy is to chemistry

Attached: a.jpg (1420x946, 57K)

>It's a non-response people only use when they get emotional, when something sacred to them has been criticized.
citation needed

>prove something doesn't exist
literally impossible.

:P i genuinely laughed hard at this, albeit not a Christian

There are no christians here, its all LARPing.

i'm not asking you to disprove the existence of the soul. i'm asking you to prove that consciousness as a single unit is generated by the body and lives/dies with the body. i'm going to leave and come back, you will have plenty of time to prove the assertion in the OP post

how retarded you have to be to define logic as "a shitty play on words"

>these imaginary ideals have never been the input or output of any experiment ever, nor ever will be, and are taught as absolute truth and the makeup of the universe
An electron isn't an imaginary ideal. Serious, why the fuck people on Yea Forums are so fucking dumb and yet so insufferably smug? Is it just the faggots here trying to justify how they aren't wasting their lifes here?

"Can anybody actually think that/do that?" is said when something that is sacred to them is thrown aside by another. The response is a popular one to tragedies, murders, acts of terrorism etc etc. This is why the left love using the phrase so much, because they generally hold so many ideas sacred, not that the right doesn't too (usually when examining the left). In this case, it was shittalking philosophy, this thing that was held sacred by the responder. All in all, this was pretty fun to dissect so thank you for giving me the opportunity.

When I say that, I don't mean "it's only true if you believe it, and you can decide whether you believe it or not". That's how much of philosophy functions. Science is not so. If the external world is non-illusory, and causality a constant law, then yes, scientific methodology is true whether you believe in it or not. But it's "a philosophy", in the sense that it follows a methodology, this methodology having axioms (ex. causality is an unbreakable law, all reality can be measured) which cannot be proved in the system, and which limit it from a larger and overarching worldview. How does the scientific method investigate the Numbers it investigates with, for example? It cannot. You have to take a philosophical position on the nature of numbers, such as Platonism, and science itself can only utilize them for the items it studies. Stop being silly, please. Nobody is insulting or deflating your beloved field, and anyone that does so is deluded, as I said earlier.

>le body is just a le radio for le soul
what is it with retards on Yea Forums making this exact analogy, or are you all the same guy?

modern science cannot even approach an explanation of the experience you are having right now (consciousness, qualia, being) you blinkered moron

>Who gives a shit about some bullshit a greek made up a trillion years ago?
Scientists

Attached: adopt-euclid1685-2.jpg (500x412, 127K)

>the point is not that scientists make a lot of money, its that philosophers make none
is this a bad thing? I always figured asceticism was good

>i’ll just redefine philosophy to mean everything and then everything is philosophy QED
shit like this is why being compared to you guys is implicitly insulting

Yes, I'd like to answer:
>what is the lifespan of a neuron?
hee hee hee hope this satisfies you, friend, because you are going to need to deny a lot of discoveries to prove me wrong!

Getting a bit angry there, guy?

Replace soul with mind if you can't get handle that word, they refer to the same thing.

What's wrong with that analogy? It's not only a Yea Forums thing

just because you can't understand the literature and studies of scientific fields that are answering these doesn't mean they don't exist.

not a single scientist worth anything will have any doubts over the fact that consciousness is a neurological phenomenon and the role that genes play in the emergence of consciousness

it's actually all very easy when you understand it

I agree, but thats not what meant

IMAGINE thinking science is objective. Take the Popper pill

Okay so this supposedly covers why people do theology, but what about epistemology and metaphysics in general?

I think that user is referring to the math used to understand these fundamental parts of the supposed physical world.

Alright user, what are numbers? Can you use the scientific method to unravel their nature? If not, they can't be deemed "scientific", since they precede the requirements which qualify something as such.

I know it’s not from Yea Forums because the exact idea was btfo by a literal woman back in the 17th century, I’m just annoyed that people here still use it

They had radios in the 17th century?

>Nope, "you" didn't. You neither know what consciousness is nor how it corresponds with neurological activity. Nor did you prove how your genes correspond to the breakfast cereal you prefer. For fucks sake you didn't even proof you could use the word "literally" correctly.
Not OP, but the fact that people's personality can change from a head injury or tumor tells me that consciousness results from the brain itself. I am not an atheist but details like that make me doubt the existence of a soul and makes me lean that people are just glorified animals, which is sad despite of all the beauty in this world.

>these imaginary ideals have never been the input or output of any experiment ever, nor ever will be, and are taught as absolute truth and the makeup of the universe
Nope. He is quite literally saying that no one ever did even a fucking double slit experiment, since it uses electrons as an input. He is just a fucking idiot.

no, but plenty of bad ideas

Is it not? He references Plato so I assume he uses the word "soul" as Plato does, in which it is in reference to both the intellect and identity; both being immaterial.

What woman were you referencing and what'd she say about that idea?

Euclides is respected because his conceptation of mathematical remained sound to this day, not because people are wow'd because Euclides said that. Hell, Elements have a infamous flaw that tooked until the end of 19th century to fix.

>people here still use it
It's still useful for understanding how the relationship between the soul and the body work
personality and consciousness are different things

anyway I'm not here to take any side of the discussion, I think both of them complement each other nicely. just proceed to think in more than one paradigm and see how much more useful it is than sticking only to one

>christfags

Attached: 1489715813327.png (466x660, 249K)

>mathematics isn’t an empirical science
damn dude mind blown

It's not. So tell me, how do we explore the nature of mathematics, since we can't use the scientific method for it? "Falsification" is no longer a litmus, for example. Whose viewpoint on mathematics is the correct one?

Be careful user, it almost sounds like you're arriving back at that dreaded and impoverished concept known as "philosophy"...and us SCYENTISS are well beyond such nonsense, you know that...

>"Falsification" is no longer a litmus, for example.
Not him, but proof by contradiction is a thing. Serious, have people here flunked highschool or something?

Not even relevant? If two competing theories of mathematics are both logically-sound, and neither can be proven empirically, and are both fundamentally unfalsifiable, which is the correct one?

You don't even have the slightest answer to the subject-object dilemma, why do you even pretend to have anything solved?

>competing theories of mathematics
Not the guy you're talking to but what would that even be?

if you’re talking about the parts of math that matter you just do proofs to see what’s true and what isn’t. if you mean muh platonism n sheeeeit then that’s a wash

>anti-Anglo pleb
>believes nonsense
>forced to speak the language of his masters
pottery

>and are both fundamentally unfalsifiable
This implies that it would be impossible to think of a single way in which one of those theories could produce an absurd conclusion, which would demand that theories to have no capacity to reach a conclusion in the first place.

Begging the question. The truths obtained from proofs are not empirical either. Fundamentally, truth is not an empirical category.

damn dude I almost forgot math isn’t an empirical science thanks for reminding me

This, truth is an epistemological category.

I have no examples, but imagine it were the case - how would you navigate it?

>if you mean muh platonism n sheeeeit then that’s a wash
wrong

>imagine it were the case
the statement is not even defined well enough for me to imagine it to be true.

Epistemological and metaphysical category*

prove platonism true or false then.

>I have no examples, but imagine it were the case - how would you navigate it?
Again, zero falsifiability implies zero predicting power to being with, which implies that the whole thing isn't even a theory in the first place since it wouldn't be able to explain anything. The question would simple be nonsensical.

Imagine the general premise of two logically-sound, unfalsifiable theoretical understandings being compared to eachother. How does one decide the truer of the two?

On a more minor note, do as said and prove or disprove Mathematical Platonism.

But we're speaking in purely theoretical terms here now. We aren't using these non-empirical ideals being dealt with for "predicting" anything in empirical reality, necessarily, but speaking on their nature as ideals themselves. I'm sure examples exist out there, even if I can't draw them up. The Platonism argument is one version though.

Nowadays, there are very few mind-body dualists left and most people don't doubt in physicalism (that means, the "mind" is corresponding to physical processes (processes in the brain).
The very question is the nature of said correspondences and how you can picture them properly (what's the theory behind it). States of the mind have been proven not to be identical with states of the brain - people may have the same feeling for example, althought the brain activity measured is different and vice versa. Supervenience might be an answer, but there are problems with it, too.
A lot of philosophers of language on the other hand, think all of this is just a pseudo-problem caused by an improper use of language.

Therefore, "Does the mind correlate with the body?" isn't the question anymore - the question is: "How do they correlate?". And that's pretty much unknown territory (at least in a strictly scientific way).

>soul
If you speak of a "soul", you have to be aware, there are two very different concepts of it. The more common one is the Cartesian soul which is directly related to a mind-body dualism and therefore, pretty much noone supports it anymore. The Aristotelian concept of the soul on the other hand is a totally different story.

two true mathematical statements cannot contradict each other, so at least one of them is false.

>We aren't using these non-empirical ideals being dealt with for "predicting" anything in empirical reality, necessarily, but speaking on their nature as ideals themselves
The problem is that a mathematical theory needs to have prediction power per definition, since it needs to make a statement about mathematical reality. Saying it is unfalsifiable is saying that there is no case where they are contradicted, which just leads them to don't say anything at all.

Do you already have some grasp over Plato's theory of Ideas?

Kek

What are the Cartesian and Aristotelian souls?

A mathematical theory is a conjunt of theorems, and theorems are in turn are logical statements(ie declarations that either true or false) that are proven through axioms. Saying that a mathematical theory can't make predictions is to say that it can't describe the behavior of the what is being analyzed, which implies that the theorems that composed the theory are not true or false statements, which would mean that they aren't theorems, which means that the theory isn't actually a theory.

Explain what is wrong with it

Basically, it makes a bunch of very dubious assumptions and downright nonsensical leaps of logic, making it easy to be reframed to allow absurd conclusions. That notion isn't really controversial, either, with actual religious philosophers such as Robert Spitzer outright admitting that it doesn't work.

The Cartesian soul is a non-physical entity (a little bit like a universal/abstract entity but capable of acting on its own) which is the real agent "behind" a human being - the body just acts in accordance with the soul due to a constant recreation of the world by god in accordance with the acting of the souls. Descartes is a little bit vague on it, but he seems to identify the soul with his "res cogitans" - the thinking thing from the Meditations which would mean, the soul is a merely intellectual entity completely separated from the body.

Aristotle's soul on the other hand isn't an entity but a capacity. More precise: the principle of the capacity of a body to move by itself.
Everything which is able to move by itself (e.g. trees -> growing, dogs -> running, human beings -> thinking) has a soul. In a simplified way, the Aristotelian soul is nothing but a life force, the vitality, the "drive" of a living being.
In English, there are linguistical remnants of that conception when you speak of "animated" things or "animals" (anima is the latin word for soul).

The most important differences are: entity vs. capacity and non-physical vs. body-bound); although those concepts differ in a lot more ways.

Why, after reading so many boards and threads do I rarely ever find a single poster I agree with.

Isn't the mind/ intellect a part of the Platonic/ Aristotelian soul? The soul is the animating thing, but is not merely so. It also is the identity and intellect, at least that is what I understand from Plato. The soul as understood in antiquity by stated philosophers is also immaterial just as the Cartesian soul is.

>all non-science systems that attempt an explanation of existence are in their final death throes.
>hard problem of consciousness stands even more implacable than ever

Attached: 1551241526894.jpg (4093x2894, 439K)

as has been stated above in the thread, the "hard problem of conscious" has been indelibly reduced to an examination of how neurological processes create subjective experience, not *if* they do or don't. Its been undeniably proven that consciousness does indeed arise from physical properties, now we just have to figure out how.

much like how we knew there were atoms for 1,000s of years but only very recently were able to see them and investigate further into them to find subatomic particles that compose them.

but of course the rate of scientific progress has increased astronomically from its previous increment of advancement in the past few centuries (funnily enough, correlating with the decline and abolition of religious institutions and power; hmmmmmm thinkingemoji.png), so the answer will probably be found within this side of the 21st century

>Its been undeniably proven that consciousness does indeed arise from physical properties, now we just have to figure out how.
>imagine actually thinking this

Thank you very much

look, this attitude of yours comes from an incomprehension of what modern Science as an institution actually is.

Science is not the same thing that democritus or celsus practiced. it isn't what copernicus was doing. Science as praxis has been completely altered and stands as the only necessary human institution.

this is due to the principle that, as Science advances, the horizon of Science expands proportionally. because of this, soon everything is found to be explicable by Science as Science becomes more and more refined, specialized, and technologically informed (technology that arises out of Science itself). basically, Science builds the tools that allow us access to truths previously denied to us due to our Scientific limitations. these limitations found temporary expression in the ephemeral institutions of the humanities (philosophy/religion/anthropology etc) but are now being eviscerated by the alacrity and rigor of Science's method and the results it yields.

tld;dr Science will encompass everything due to the principle of what Science is. just rejoice that you don't have to die of small-pox at birth because the woman who could have vaccinated you was burned as witch after healing someone with rudimentary apothecary techniques

>Isn't the mind/ intellect a part of the Platonic/ Aristotelian soul?
Yep. Both Plato and Aristotle divide the soul into three parts, but they differ from each other a little bit.
Plato divides the soul into drive/instinct, will and rationality - Aristotle divides it into anima vegetativa (vegetative soul), anima sensitiva (sensitive soul) and anima intelligibilis (rational soul).

>The soul as understood in antiquity by stated philosophers is also immaterial just as the Cartesian soul is.
It's not as simple as that. The thought of an immaterial soul (as an entity) is much older than philosophy. The Pythagoreans advocated heavily for it later on, and since Plato was influenced by their thoughts, he took over that idea. Nevertheless, it's a little bit obscure if he took it over hands down, or if he was at least a little bit ironic about it. One of the key dialogs for this subject is "Menon" - and it depends upon your opinion on it: is Platon completely sincere, or is he making fun of the Pythagoreans - for example he uses an irrational number during Menon which contradicts the Pythagorean central teachings).

When it comes to Aristotle, it is pretty clear, he thinks of the soul as a capacity instead of an entity. Is a capacity immaterial? At least, he makes it pretty clear it's inseperable from the body. (Although it's not completely clear if Aristotle entirely denied the idea, a soul had immaterial (and immortal) "entityish" parts like the intellect.)

>much like how we knew there were atoms for 1,000s of years
dumb retard

Science doesn't have the faintest clue of either how, or why, or where, subjective experience exists at all, and the object-subject dilemma will likely take them many more centuries to even make a dent in. I may as well assume that my phone is not merely aware, but has an entire inner life of its own, also found in my laptop and television. By no means should an objective world have a subjective sibling to itself such that neither can even slightly be found in eachother; yet here we are, and this happens to be actual reality.

Will science also replace moral philosophy?

morals are subjective instances of utilitarian measurements conditioned by millennia of evolutionary-conditioned and selected prompts.

genes have certain parameters that are ideal for their reproduction and you are coded to bring these about. morality is a means of making propagation more conducive.

next, please

Dude, that sounds more like religious preaching.

Look up >sociobiology.

I fucking hate the idea that you have to take a side with either philosophy or science when they both serve completely different purposes and neither contradicts the other

You just presupposed a universal morality in this post. How? By making universal truth claims. In other words, we SHOULD accept what is true. If this were not the case, your post is meaningless, but as we can understand it, it is not meaningless.

>How? By making universal truth claims
retarded

Meno is not the only dialogue which covers the immateriality of the soul (Phaedo for instance), and considering his doctrine of recollection (argued for in both Meno and Phaedo among others) necessitating the soul being immaterial in nature to be able to come to know immaterial Ideas directly before ones birth, I have serious doubts he was insincere in this assessment. I can't comment on Aristotle since I'm less familiar with him compared to Plato, though I was aware of how he divided the soul.

>he doesn't know

I have that impression about Plato, too.
On the other hand it always made me wonder why he had to use sqr(2) during Meno. And I really doubt it's accidental.

>Look up >sociobiology.
That is descriptive. Moral philosophy is meant to produce normative claims and tell use what we should actually be doing.
I'm the user you replied to. What you told me has the same problem the user I replied to above has, you are telling me what morals are but you aren't telling me exactly what is actually morally good. This still leaves open a few big questions. Why should we support science? How does science justify the moral claim that we should support science? If such questions cannot be answered with science alone, then it appears moral philosophy is still of some use even in the face of the supposedly monolithic and all-absorbing science.

>he thinks he knows

>It's possible for systems of epistemology and ethics to be disjunctive

>>It's not possible for systems of epistemology and ethics to be disjunctive

You are one of the worst people, please kindly off yourself. Fucking praeterrationalists invading this board and making normal rationalists look bad.
Science is not an institution or some personified deity. Neither is it a fucking dogma like you present it. Science is a method for observing and attempting to understand how the world functions. That's it. It is fundamentally grounded in epistemology, and since people enjoy not being assholes, has an added twist of moral philosophy. But science has absolutely no claims to answering questions on how to view the universe. That belongs to the humanities and philosophy.

Let me give you an example to hopefully get it through your dense inferior nasal concha. You suspect that plants grow because of a mystical force that permeates the air. You surround the plant with a clear jar— it eventually stops growing (from lack of CO2). You conclude, scientifically, that there is a magical force in the atmosphere that, if cut off, prevents plants from gaining necessary nourishment.
This theory is wrong according to our current understanding. But, it fits the evidence, and seems to have a logical mechanism of action for a, say, eastern society. The way you approach the experimentation, and the hypotheses you form, are presuppositions that are based off of a non-scientific worldview, be it philosophical, theological, whatever the fuck you want to choose. And since it appears to make sense, it will likely go unchallenged for quite a while, if not forever, given it matches up with the dominant way of thinking in society.

My point is, science can only test preconceived notions about the world. The actual creating of these notions is not a scientific endeavor. The directions you attack a problem from (out of infinite possibilities, you can only ever hit an infinitely small subset of them), are based on internalized ways of viewing the world. This is why science will NEVER fucking become the only institution humans need (thankgod). It is sterile and lifeless. It tests ideas— without even making any claims to proving the validity of these ideas— and these ideas need to come from somewhere else.

So, in short, fuck off with your godless nihilistic existence.

>science can only test preconceived notions about the world. The actual creating of these notions is not a scientific endeavor.
das pretty dumb tbqh

aww, you were so close and then came to a sad conclusion. don't you find it strange that individuals in similar populations (using whatever metric you like, race, height, eye color, religion) can have vastly different moral systems, or that an individual's own moral system can change?

I'm actually that guy you responded to, I don't know the other person, but I dismissed you becuase you didn't really make an argument.

>we have literally proven that consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity
we don't have a proper definition of consciousness, and it makes no sense to make statements about something we haven't defined

I like William Bragg's response to these people who mindlessly follow either science or religion.
>From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.

Attached: 1545537404966.jpg (1200x675, 56K)

based Rand poster

can science explain why there is causality?
thought so.

Correct and right. Science fags btfo again, by facts and logic of all things.

I don't care much for the debate in the thread nor what do any of you think of my personal beliefs but I'm curious about the book OP posted. Does it explain in detail the five proofs? Does it take an opposing stance, akin to Socratic dialogues and builds up both sides of the argument? If not, does such a book exist? And if the answer to that is negative as well, does a book called something like "five reputations of the existence of god" exist? Thanks in advance

""""philosofags"""" (aka burger flippers) suffer from deep envy of science. It's sad really

Not an argument.
Prove us wrong.
Protip: you can't.

>Does it explain in detail the five proofs?
Yes, it does a decent job of explaining the argument from change, the argument from composites, the argument from eternal truths, the argument from the essence/existence distinction and the argument from contingency, respectively.

>Does it take an opposing stance, akin to Socratic dialogues and builds up both sides of the argument?
No, but Feser does respond to the most common objections against natural theology in general and to each certain proof in particular.

>If not, does such a book exist?
One that presents the arguments of the theistic side correctly probably doesn't exist.

>And if the answer to that is negative as well, does a book called something like "five reputations of the existence of god" exist?
Probably, but not one that actually refutes any of the arguments presented in Feser's book. And you really can't form a deductive argument from the ground up that would disprove the existence of God. What would your starting premises even be? The theistic arguments, on the other hand, start with common sense observations like "there is change" and proceed to show how such a thing is ultimately even possible.

t. dumb american poster

You should read Everlasting man by G K Chesterton but your ignorance both of science and philosophy is so big almost nothing can change your mind unless you spend more time on it.

>"Can anybody actually think that/do that?" is said when something that is sacred to them is thrown aside by another. The response is a popular one to tragedies, murders, acts of terrorism etc etc. This is why the left love using the phrase so much, because they generally hold so many ideas sacred, not that the right doesn't too (usually when examining the left). In this case, it was shittalking philosophy, this thing that was held sacred by the responder.
wow, that's an awful analysis based on cherrypicking examples, false extrapolation and some unjustified projection. when someone ironically says some stupid shit like "I think that Clinton is a lizard" and someone else responds "Imagine that there are people out there really thinking that" what do you think are the emotions connected to the latter? That there was a sacrilege or just plain stupidity? I pity you, fool.

Alright, I'll read it then but I am skeptical about it

That's great.

Explain why science is valuable

Morals are not utalitarian at all, what are you blabig about, and even if they where just that and arouse only from genes that still won't thell you what is good or bad or beautiful.
Utility is terrible judge of what is good or bad.
And there is absolutely no evidence that morals came form utility needed for society. 0 nill you are just blabing some nonsense you read on an evolutionary philology book that by the why is as far away from science as you can get.

Pretty good.

>muh science retard keeps making philosophical claims

Hilarious every time

Hahahahaha how the fuck is philosophy even a real thing hahahahaha nigga just read Dawkins hahaha like nigga do science haha

wrong
Keep seething you swarthy shitskin

Christ what's the alternative to religion or philosophy? Materialist deterministic nihilism? Why should I sign up for that even if its true?

>Christ what's the alternative to religion or philosophy?(*philosophical positions*) Why should I sign up for that even if its true?
Late wittgensteinianism.

Imagine being so dumb that you don't understand the libet experiment.

Conscious consent was given upon participation in the experiment.

>I just don't understand why people are still reading
Agreed

Camus thought you could magically suspend the need for grounding through sheer edginess. I'm not enough of a tipper to pull that off, I doubt anyone is. Find something you like to believe and believe it.Something that seems to you eminently self evident, like the principle of non-contradiction, and work from there.

There are no married bachelors.

"Analytic" demonstrations are dressed up tautologies. Prove that a particular empirical object doesn't exist, and don't say "There are no general particular empirical objects."

Philosophy is a means of stroking the ego. Any human bonds that can be gained through the discussion of philosophy are not and never will be as strong as the bonds gained through kindness and compassion. The act of relying on arguments to convey a point of high conplexity allows for a non-subliminal, tactile double talk which affects both sides. Collaborative efforts are much more precise in reaching a truthful conclusion than are argumentative efforts. That is not to say however, that there is no use for some of the methodological elements exercised in arguments. However, if philosophy is to gain true prominence, the classical format of its practice must evolve to suit the context in which its practiced.

Classically, the people with the capacity for focused philosopcical inquiry were few. However, this few over the years laid out the philosophical landscape and showed its compounded nature so that the depth one can reach is limited only by their proclivity to continue.

Philosophy is, it inself, it’s own worst enemy, plainly because of how successful the field has been.

Some people, rare though they are, do still use interpersonal argumentation as a means to self-improvement rather than a means to show off their erudition.

(((Karl Popper)))

I’m one of them. But it’s a pain in the ass when you came across the blow hard whose knowledge of philosophy exceeds his experiences of reality. I’ve been on both sides of this. Striking a balanced lifestyle through the use of philosophy is like trying to take microdoses of heroine to keep you happy. It’s never enough unless its too much, and that marks the onset of a pervasive set of problems.

Any lit on this?

It has nothing to do with "experiences of reality," the problem of sham knowledge, that is. Truth within a theoretical framework is just the totality's self-consistency with each of its own particularities. It has to do with not caring about the actual truth inherent in the framework, but caring instead about whether or not other people think you are "correct."

"The Art of Being Right" by Schopenhauer.

It has everything to do with experiences of reality. Of what value is time spent on the exploration of philosophical concepts with no foreseeable application in reality? Each proven axiom, in some way, pertains to our world. The matter then is whether or not we develop the eyes for it. That fact is reliant on experience.

I see what you’re saying. The truth, as it exists theoretically, can only be referenced by steadfastly adhering to a perspective and fighting through the weeds, so to speak, until understanding is reached in another. Is this what you’re saying?

Because if that’s the case, the implications this has on the entire field of philosophical inquiry is immense, as the field can only continue in so far as the ego exists to be self-gratified, to put it in Freudian terms.

And somehow I knew Shopenhauer would be the reply. user, if there’s no answer, why continue philosophy? Is it the result of the maturation of our desire for play and stimulating social relationships?

there's a psyop to destroy philosophy on here. the thing is, it's not gonna work because people here are too pathetically attached to the previous hive mind to change to a new one
it's hilarious

Then the psyop is shit.

Kek. This thread has been up for a while and this still hasn't been replied to.

As long as assumptions are made or concepts that need to be cleared there will be philosophy. Science and philosophy need each other more than ever.

haahha based linky

t.23k stack

kek what an insecure post

>Science and philosophy need each other more than ever.
meanwhile in reality neither gives a shit about the other

teenage boys: *wear hats for like a month in 2010*
internet: *memes them as the literal devil for the rest of eternity*

Attached: pic2.png (533x492, 227K)

Yes it is a shame

Will we see the natural sciences establish a solid basis for their epistemology and ontology in our lifetime?

It's literally impossible

Attached: LiterallyImpossible.jpg (748x708, 69K)

*tips*

>seething

Attached: 1552800811125.png (625x773, 143K)

Worship of science will turn humanity into an unrecognizable hive of chemically regulated bags of meat trapped in a society devoted to blind optimization regulated only by mass death and we will deserve every bit of it.

* “For science that which cannot be detected, does not exist. If something can just not be detected, absolutely undetectable it is, then science will say, “It does not exist”. Spirituality says, “My instruments for detection are very limited. I detect using my senses and my intellect which are quite limited. Something that cannot be thus detected may also exist; in fact it may be more real than what the senses announce as real.” Spirituality thus lacks the arrogance of science.Science says if my eyes can see, look at it, only then it exist. Spirituality says but first of all am I sure that my eyes are an instrument capable enough to tell me the truth? Spirituality is an honest, brutally honest search for the truth. And kindly do not think that it precludes science. To go beyond something is not the same as rejecting it. Spirituality is deeply scientific and so very scientific that it transcends science. You could even say that it is more scientific than science.Science stops at one particular superstition. What is the fundamental superstition of science? – That my eyes will tell me the truth. And my intellect can tell me the Truth. That is the fundamental superstition of science. Spirituality does not accept even that superstition. Spirituality says, “No! What the mind says is just that, the words of the mind. I want to look at the mind itself”. And that looking at the mind cannot happen while remaining in the province of mind. Hence, there has to be something beyond the mind.”

"the perceiver is real"

wow. What a revelation unique to science

Jesus Christ you're dumb

Most people do this and willingly sit in a self made cage of their own delusion. One could instead wear the cloak of belief, it being interchangeable with a little effort, in the sane way that the chaoists do,

No arguments in sight.

It's actually a splendid genealogy with cogent points and philosofags are just asspained that their sbake-oil show is being exposed

nah it’s for the best

>If something can just not be detected, absolutely undetectable it is, then science will say, “It does not exist”.
this literally isn’t even true. you retards always argue against this weird caricature of science and I’m assuming it’s because none of you have taken a science class since middle school