I still don't understand how so many scientists can be completely ignorant of philosophy. Stating that it's worthless, that no one cares about it, how it has nothing to do with science. How did this gross misunderstanding of a 2,500+ field of inquiry go on to become unknown to these people?
youtube.com
Just watch this biologist make a complete fool of himself. He even seems validated by his ignorance.
The useful parts of philosophy are called science. The other parts can easily be disregarded.
The cancer that is nineteenth century philosophy. Literally diarrhea-tier. There are exceptions, of course. But the mainstream was truly retarded.
Literally kill yourselves.
youtube.com
>Females in STEM
Looooooooooooooool funnyass comic OP
1. YOU MEAN «SCIENCISTS», NOT «SCIENTISTS».
2. IT IS ONLY CONGRUENT THAT SCIENCISTS NEGLECT, AND DISREGARD, PHILOSOPHY, SINCE SCIENTISM IS AN ANTISCIENTIFIC, ILLUMINISTIC, CULT DEVOTED TO THE INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HUMANS; SCIENTISM IS A BRANCH OF THE TREE OF ZIONISM.
Too based for a tripfag
Holy shit this debate is so frustrating
>Philosophy created the scientific method
>There's no evidence for that! Show me one thing philosophy has done!
>Well philosophy justifies the scientific method, why would we seek for truth that doesnt help us at all? Whats ethical in science? These are all philosophical questions!
>No evidence for that at all; show me one thing philosophy has done.
>Well philosophy justifies the scientific method
It doesn't
>why would we seek for truth that doesnt help us at all?
We shouldn't
>Whats ethical in science?
Philosophy has no answers for this
I'm not watching your onions bullshit. The useful parts of philosophy are called science. The other parts can easily be disregarded.
Ethics
>Whats ethical in science?
Science has no answer for that, so it leaves the space blank and begins vivisecting everyone. Science is now really fucking horny
That's just obviously wrong my friend
Ethics hasn't been solved by philosophy after 3,000 years. It has yielded billions of words of contradictions with no hope of resolving or proving anything. There isn't even a consensus, let alone a conclusion.
>Ethics hasn't been solved
No one's solved biology/chemistry/physics either bitch
t. STEM chad
What has philosophy concluded about vivisection?
Those are just unkempt guys.
There is a scientific consensus on countless questions in all of those fields. There are infinitely more questions to solve, but infinitely more will be solved.
No ethical question has been solved by philosophy and none ever will be.
"Science" in the STEMlord sense is actually an aspect of Catholicism, so it follows that it is antithetic to the human spirit.
Can I bash your head in with a brick and and study the results to better understand the effects of blunt-force trauma on humans? It'll be helping Science(tm), of course!
You don't know what I look like or where I live, and I don't want you to, so no. No philosophy required for that question.
>There isn't even a consensus, let alone a conclusion
Because ethics is fundamentally a subjective affair that can only be properly investigated by a person equipped with the philosophical tools to make a case-by-case assessment on the ethical course of action in any given situation. This is how you create **good citizens.**
But what if I was positive it would help improve scientific understanding? Maybe it would help reduce car fatalities in the future?
Which philosophical tools?
I still don't want you to, so still no.
Critical thinking, investigation into human motivations, an understanding on what actions/words are most effective vs. those that are least effective, etc.
If philosophy shows that I should have my head bashed in, then sure. Which of the last 3,000 years of philosophical works proves I should have my head bashed in? And what do you say to the works which say yours is wrong?
So, you would say that in this case, the pursuit of science isn't the highest goal? That I should value your life over scientific inquiry?
You can critically think about an ethical situation and reach completely different conclusions depending on your preferences. Philosophy has no bearing on this and can't disprove any ethical conclusion you come up with.
Without the study of ethics you wouldn't have the right to be shitposting right now. Granted I'm assuming you're a woman for your lack of intelligence, but you could also be gay.
If science is the perfect arbiter of truth, wouldn't it make sense that we should pursue it at all costs then? Even if it means some people will have to sacrifice their lives for it?
How did each of the people involved in a ethical scenario come up with their preferences?
>it doesn't
It absolutely does. How do we know science is reliable? What constitutes evidence? Is reason as valuable as empiricism? etc. are all philosophical questions
>We shouldn't
Yet we do. What possible benefit do we gain from the discovery of some uninhabitable planet? Or the biology of penguins? etc.
Most scientists wouldn't agree with you and a purely PHILOSOPHICAL discussion would have to be had concerning this disagreement.
>Philosophy has no answers for this
look up the entire field of ethics.
The term "should value" is nonsense, since we all have our values anyway. Philosophy doesn't say your values are right or wrong; philosophy doesn't say my values are right or wrong. If you want to bash my head in you can find an argument for it, or you can just do it anyway. If I want my head not bashed in I can find an argument against it, or I can just tell you to fuck off. Trying to frame our values in terms of philosophy is just role-playing, since the philosophy of ethics has presented every possible worldview and none of them have been proven or disproven.
What would it take for an ethical worldview to be "proven" or "disproven?"
>How do we know science is reliable? What constitutes evidence? Is reason as valuable as empiricism? etc. are all philosophical questions
which, again, philosophy doesn't actually answer.
>look up the entire field of ethics.
Presenting a smorgasbord of every possible answer from which to pick the answer you want isn't an answer.
It can't be. Which makes the entire field a waste of time.
>Presenting a smorgasbord of every possible answer from which to pick the answer you want isn't an answer.
But reducing thousands of years of thought to generalizing statements like "which, again, philosophy doesn't actually answer." is?
Out of curiosity, what do you base your opinion of "philosophy" on?
Honest question, how do you live your life then? What things drive you, what things do you value? How do you come to decisions in tricky situations?
>PHILOSOPHY FAGS ITT GETTING BUTTHURT
How much time and money have you wasted on tilling that barren field anons?
I agree OP. It seems the issue stems from pop-sci predominantly.
Yes it’s time to realize that the fields are very important. In particular, most people should study certain things like Aristotleian Metaphysics or Game Theory. Game Theory can raise existential questions, Aristotle’s work on Analytics predated logic, a lot of these fields assist computer science and various other sciences. Charles Darwin had obviously been well versed in Aristotle when he had written his book On the Origin of Species.
I don’t understand the antagonism between the two fields. I think it is a rather modern invention, thus solidifying my idea that contemporary society is worse than its ever been. It’s like how no one realizes Descartes quote is attached to a rather long and expansive, sprawling geometrical treatise. I mean, cmon.
:3
Now, who is going to read the Opus Major by Roger Bacon with me after I finish Fibonacci’s book of Squares?
Got a phd paid off my loans now I do what I love in research, fuck around with other grads-also talking and discussing the topics at hand- and work as a TA getting paid way more then I should for essentially fuckin around with my prof. thank you very much
Your mentality towards your own discipline, and making money in general, sucks. :3
A profound statement. On which philosophical thoughts did you base your stance that his mentality sucks?
So you freely admit you are wasting your time?
The idea that slothfulness and avarice are terrible sins, from which the objective critique of any morality stems primarily from. :3
Not him but give up this line of questioning, it's embarrassing. You're not Socrates you're a mewling manchild trying his best to maintain the thin layer of pretension that is scaffolding up a vapid personality.
However I feel like.
You can't follow the Bible without an ingrained preference for which parts to follow and which parts to ignore. You can't use philosophy for ethics without an ingrained preference for which movements/theories to follow and which to ignore. It's the same thing.
Sounds like philosophy to me. Without heretics to attack your position, and advocates to defend it, all using a consistent system of logic and reason to formulate their thoughts, how could you know that the idea that "slothfulness and avarice are terrible sins" is an objective truth, and not a deception that causes greater harm than good?
>Out of curiosity, what do you base your opinion of "philosophy" on?
From reading a lot of philosophy.
>I have fun by accomplishing nothing
Great, you and literally everyone else on Yea Forums
Perhaps from the objective findings of political science?
After all, a civilization can only last so long before self-destroying due to various sins that they indulge in. Look into the fall of the Roman Empire, for instance. In its last throes, the Roman Empire was hedonistic. I could also recommend you Plato’s Critias, which states a similar thing about the submerged city of Atlantis.
No, I don't studying what I want is improving my life daily I apply the ethics and studies I read everyday making myself a better person. And its helpful because albeit I do fuck around with my TA position teaching comes first I love teaching the undergrads the ropes and hoping they apply the philosophy they learn to everyday life. I still keep in contact with ones that don't go the academia route and they 99% of the time always say they would never change their major its helped them tremendously persuaing the bosses and almost alludes an aura of discipline and wiseness out of every person that learns. So no I'm not wasting my time
I've given many paychecks away so undergrads can stay in school and I study 4hrs and work in TA related duties for 3-4hr. It may sound like a bad attitude but when the foundation of my studies is something I like its hard not to enjoy
myself and feel like im not doing any "work".
For the same reason people think the earth is flat, Joseph smith was a prophet, and Kanye west is talented.
People are retarded from all walks of life because being willing to scrutinize your ideas and engage in a dialogue leaves you with terrifying uncertainty and no friends. You eventually have to get over it and stop caring what people think
Alright, follow-up question - how do you know however you feel like is good, or the right thing to do?
These are all extremely complicated questions with no clear cut answer. Similar questions arise in the fields of physics and psychology yet you would never use this as proof of their worthlessness.
Ahaha this must be a LARP. Where'd you get your PHD a fucking community college? You type like a retard, you sound like a retard, I'm getting the sense you are a retard. Please deliver some more vague platitudes about how Worthy your worthless little profession, I need a laugh.
>How do we know science is reliable? What constitutes evidence? Is reason as valuable as empiricism?
ask a scientist, obviously
>slothfulness and avarice are terrible sins
cringe
Science.
The autism that generally comes with having a knack for the STEM fields is also what precludes them from understanding more big picture things like philosophy and metacognition. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop the overcompensation and god-complex.
I studied in Germany and English is my 4th language that I picked up mostly through osmosis so sorry if I sound like how you say.
Saying science requires philosophy to answer questions philosophy doesn't answer is ludicrous. The useful parts of philosophy are called science. The other parts can easily be disregarded.
Really? How does that work?
>implying philosophers aren't profoundly autistic
>god-complex
Saying science is worthless without you because you have the ability to ask questions you have no idea how to answer is pretty god-complex
Stick to German, you'll probably sound like less of an idiot.
Science has given us the atom bomb. They've only been used against people twice in history, which if fortunate and we should hope it stays that way, but there's also a non-zero chance they could be used again.
Was science "right" to create these atom bombs?
psychology is not a science
>Was science "right" to create these atom bombs?
Science doesn't "create" shit. Through science people found out that an atom bomb was possible. Engineers and physicists and construction workers created them.
Whether creating an atom bomb is right is going to depend on what your ethical principles are but that has nothing to do with science and it's not something philosophy will ever answer.
Every ethical statement is inherently philosophical. Whenever you decide on what you should or shouldn't do in any situation, you are thinking philosophically
t.brainlet
>*fails to replicate 2/3 of accepted results in his field*
It is like that time of the day that we hear there is absolutely no connection between islam and blowings things up.
Well, it kind of does. Science gives us the power to create all sorts of things we've never had the power to before, but if we don't have a critical assessment of what sorts of things we're trying to create, then we will just use the information we gather from science to just keep making more shit to exploit each other (think loot boxes in video games aimed at kids, only possible due to advances in computer technology.)
If you still say "thats just the applications of science, not science itself", then my question is, what's the point of science if we don't apply it?
neither is sociology or anything else beside math, physics and chemistry
So since we can never reach definitive answers to ethical questions, then we should just never think about them? Even if philosophy doesn't give an exact answer, we need philosophy to think about these things
I don't understand this sentence
Why should science exist? Why should we promote scientific research?
>we need philosophy to think about these things even though it will never give us an actual answer
why?
I seems like these people who see no value in the philosophy of ethics are moral nihilists or hedonists, so they basically do whatever they feel like in the moment and don't think about 'right' or 'wrong'.
>Why should science exist? Why should we promote scientific research?
What do you think?
Do you think we should never think about ethical matters?
Then you are a brainlet.
You answer the question first
he’s saying “Islam is like science in that I dislike both of them”
This, this is the most ironic thing about this whole thing
When people say "there's no point to philosophy", that in ITSELF is a philosophical statement, which has its own host of philosophical assumptions and ideas that it rests off.
Stop asking philosophical questions and go back to wageslaving.
>askself-styled philosopher a simple questions
>get disingenuous gotcha question in response
typical. you can think about whatever you want, i won’t stop you
Not him, but the choices are:
A) Do whatever you feel like
B) Plan and rationalize what you do, to the best of your ability (philosophy)
C) Accept a preexisting dogma such as a religion without thinking about it
>When people say "there's no point to philosophy", that in ITSELF is a philosophical statement, which has its own host of philosophical assumptions and ideas that it rests off.
which philosophy also doesn't have an answer for
>haha I redefined philosophy to mean “any type of thinking” so you’ve been doing philosophy all along haha gotcha
every time
Do you have all the answers? Does science? Why is there something and not nothing? Where did the big bang come from? Why do anything at all?
We need philosophy to think about ethics because whenever you decide to do anything in life you are thinking ethically. You make decisions in life based on your basic philosophical assumptions. You can not live life without philosophy. You deciding to wake up in the morning is based on things you value which you have arrived at through philosophy. Every single decision you make is based on philosophical, not scientific, assumptions.
Ye it is not like there were these guys called aristotle, kuhn or popper that did shit you are doing right now, oh nonono science is perfectly created by god and it is PERFECT you brainlets. Why are you asking questions you retarded statistical positivist? We are doing REAL SCIENCE which is obviously logical positivism but without the logic of course, that is not scientific since.. few decades ago. SCIENCE IS PERFECT AND STABLE HUZZAH!
What would you define philosophy as
It's pretty sad how detrimental specialization has been. It used to be praiseworthy for a scientist to go into his studies of the world with a level-headed attitude from being informed of philosophy and other fields of study from a solid liberal education. Now when more than ever our assumptions need to be questioned, and new insights into how we engage with the world should be listened to it gets unjustly put down. Maybe it's because everyday we're reminded of our success of getting material to do what we demand of it. Satisfied by the unquestioned answers the culture gives or ready made McDonald's burger and fries ideologies that require no looking into nor demand it. But this isn't found to be alarming, we're comfortable in our ignorance, and when the scientists find something we should rightly be alarmed by and they conflict with the standing ideologies, who's going to rein them in and put them to question under the microscope? Better an understanding of abstract ideas and concepts be attempted than none at all or worse, a mismanagement by those without care.
name an achievement of philosophy
Agriculture
You are alright you can drop the caps tho
My cock inside your boipucci.
No, if you're thinking about how to toast your toast properly thats not philosophical, but if you're talking about ethics (which is what the convo is about) then that is philosophy. Thinking, questioning, rationalizing about ethics is philosophy.
That it's bad
My cock inside your boipucci jajaja.
is saying 'ethics is nonsense extrapolated from evolved instincts' philosophy
That’s a philosophical argument lol
Name an achievement of science
Based.
Science
The scientific method.
Dropping a nuke on your sorry ass while you're browsing lit on your iPhone©.
my diary desu
Philosophers are the guys serving me coffee when I do my experiments for big bucks.
Are you interested in actual debate or are you just here to numb the shittiness of life by trolling people?
how many platonic dialogues did you need to read before you “decided” to wake up this morning? do you hear yourself?
on my iphone right now it hasent done shit
Why is money valuable? Why are you better than the philosopher because you make more money?
Common core is under constant recreation.
The OP is discussing "fields" as in academic fields. Thinking about your preferences in your own head isn't a "field".
Academic philosophy has resulted in nothing worthwhile in at least 100 years if not longer. Doesn't matter if I decide I like toast or science or whatever, I'm not reading journals to determine that and not a single other person on planet Earth is reading journals to determine those things. Philosophy as a field is a waste.
>haha dude look at this /pol/ meme picture ugh why don’t scientists question anything any more?
if you are the result of a “solid liberal education” I’m glad most scientists don’t get one
Yes, call it biological determinism, ethical nihilism, or whatnot. It sounds pretty philosophical to me.
Because that is life you brainlet. Philosophers are scientist larpers. They were too dumb to understand math so now they serve coffee 12 hours a day and think about rationalizations of not killing themselves.
>that is life
Explain what that statement means
It's taken strictly from an empirical perspective. Humans evolved so human's concepts of ethics is some kind of incoherent bundle of dispositions that helped them survive.
>feel like you should do something
>do it
vs.
>feel like you should do something
>come up with long-winded intellectual justification for doing it
>do it
wow what a tremendous difference philosophy has made in my life
Go give your lil socratic questions to cashiers and weed guys.
The belief that empirical evidence is valuable is a philosophical statement
That doesn't explain anything, user. Ad hominems are logically fallacious. Try again in deducing why it is that you are allegedly more valuable for making more money than a barista with a philosophy degree.
Yes, it is. It relies on several philosophical assumptions, such as:
>reality is reducible to the material element
>we can determine reality perfectly through studying the physical world
>studying the physical world will reveal to us the best way to behave in the world
and so on and so on.
Philosophy is just one big DUDE WEED LMAO. I know a guy who is into it and he is working in retail his whole life. I buy clothes there lel.
It seems like OP is referring to all philosophy, inside and outside of academia. Of course philosophy in academia rarely produces anything, but that neither discredits all of philosophy nor the entire philosophical tradition of history.
Perhaps the way society is organized is not correct. Now that being said, I’m not going to go so far as to say that people who study philosophy are smarter than your average scientist.
But I wouldn’t say that people who study science are smarter than your average philosopher, either.
Especially considering the fact that both modern philosophers and scientists are extremely lacking in the ability to study things sufficiently.
I see both sides ITT bragging about their ability to make money. I see no one ITT bragging about their ability to understand things well. :3
What are you trying to prove exactly here?
Why is working in retail bad? Please give an answer that relies on no philosophical assumptions
>tfw i bust my ass everyday working as one of three economist managing a big ass insurance firm making big decisions,studying how are numbers flow, the current situation of the times etc etc. Literally moving economic currents
>get paid like whatever although my job is extremely important and have qualifications up the ass for it
>dont care phil. of economics is my passion
>apply and suggest things ive read from marx to adam smith
>come on lit after a slow and hard day ass sweating profusely
>70% of this thread is trashing philosophy saying its useless
>mfw
It really only relies on the first one. There is no assumption of perfection nor memery about 'the best way to behave' rather it just says that ethics, like all other behavior, evolved because it helped reproduction.
So you don't actually have any arguments and don't want to even consider the value of philosophy, alright
I dont need to deduce anything to you. Unlike you I have a good life which doesnt involve studying occultism and having autistic hobby.
Exactly. Not sure why, but a lot of these people actually have not graduated college yet. They’d be willing to trash other disciplines without actually having graduated college?? Why? :3
>working at an insurance firm
the 70% was right.
Sour grapes and concealed insecurity is my bet.
There is no value in it just like alchemy it is useless and should be abolished.
You're right, i did kind of fuck up with my examples, but even still your idea still relies on the idea that using science (empiricism) can give us data that accurately reflects reality, which anyone who's even just watched a 5 minute video of epistemology on youtube would know is less certain that it seems
That's not to say I'm doubting your claims about ethics = evolved instincts, rather that its a claim that still relies on philosophical assumptions nonetheless
It looks to me like you have no meta-cognition, no self-restraint, can't critically examine yourself, and can't rethink your life choices. It looks like you've got the thought process of a child.
I want philosophyfags to go kill themselves or move to different board.
Third biggest insurance firm in the US, 1# in my state and pretty much most of the south
what's your goal in life?
What makes something valuable and worthy of existence?
Why are you on Yea Forums in the first place? Honest question.
It's clear that you're too materially retarded to realize the premise that the reality is reducible to materialism is actually true.
Philosophyfags moving out of lit is absurd but it would be an improvement for them.
We would not have to tolerate your idiocy.
>relies on the idea that using science (empiricism) can give us data that accurately reflects reality,
It relies on that because it has clear effects in the real world. Science is vindicated every time you start your car by the demonstrable application of its theory. Evolutionary biology is much less certain than more rigorous science but it's still the most reasonable explanation for human behavior.
What other source is there that an accurately reflect reality, other than experience in the world?
My bet as well. Cheers sir, have a good day :3
>my useless firm is the third biggest useless firm in the country haha take that
the only thing worse than a philosopher is an ec*nomist
As a STEMfag I find philosophy majors way more infuriating as they act like they are the only people who can read
I met some extremely nice people with msc/phd in philosophy but for some reason the ones one the internet are completely insufferable
You can reexamine yourself at will rather than trying to impose some random dead white guy's ideology on yourself.
To discuss literature and memes and not to polute this board with retarded philosophy. Go to his or reddit.
Why does every single science vs. philosophy debate basically equate to ‘how I interpret reality hurrrr’. There are some larger things to debate here than interpretation of reality or making money
:3.
Yes go away and take jezebel posters with you.
>There are some larger things to debate here
state them
That wasn’t his mentality. You just greentexted your mentality if you had made a post like that. Immature child.
:3
Να'σαι kαλά αδελφέ :)
most people on the internet are insufferable.
Bcuz wee money
It's the other way around.
(Modern) science is either useless or evil.
DUDEEEEEEEEEEEE WEEEEEEEEEEEEEDD CANT KNOW NUFFIN
Almost everybody is insufferable on the internet.
Why the insults user? Yeah it's 4chins and it's in vogue to call whatever you don't like /pol/ (I only visit Yea Forums) but it's near impossible to get a good liberal education these days unless you have the money. I just see it as a goal that I haven't attained but I'm happy to reach for.
There is no such thing as value
Neuroscience is the forefront of ethics if you're actually even remotely serious about the life.
>What other source is there that an accurately reflect reality, other than experience in the world?
I actually agree that experience is the best tool we have for discerning reality, but where I'd probably disagree with is that our sensory experience of reality is a perfect image of reality. There's just too many things that can't be explained by our senses alone (dreams? phantom noises? the mind's power to create associations? etc.) that I can't help but feel that there's more to it than that.
Not an achievement
Money allows me to live
Philosophy is explicitly allowed to go here, if you have a problem with that that's an issue with you, not the board
What is properly?
Ok, great, that's a valid reason to value money. Now, how about earning more money than you need to live though? What about earning money to buy fancy cars, or trips to the Bahamas, etc.?
Philosophy is humanities retardednesstier and should be locked in his.
Why not? Improving the gene pool for the future of humanity is an achievement.
It's pretty simple: if you make a philosophy vs. science dichotomy up, you neither understand philosophy nor science.
Haha BTFO
Epistemology. Which is why that comic exists in the first place.
The way you obtain scientific knowledge teleologically, is a good intersection between the ‘sets’ of knowledge of science and philosophy. Ptolemy touches on that in his Almagest. Book XIV, as it were. How they derive some of his findings and how they fact check them, and even the questions of why. If any of you had ever read any literature that wasn’t philosophy or science textbooks/primary sources you would be reading some mathematical/scientific primary sources. Which are valuable across time because of your ability to see how knowledge is acquired and preserved. These are the sorts of debates which would require extensive amounts of reading though.
That being said I did have some fascinating, eye-opening discussions regarding Aristotleian Metaphysics and Proclus’ interpretation of Euclid’s first book of the Elements some time late last year. It really is a shame that this is rare these days. For whatever reason, people are getting more and more heated and more irritable about ‘distinctions’. :3
They need to find God
you're not the boss of Yea Forums
>Neuroscience is the forefront of ethics
What if you don’t think Neuroscience is ethical?
:3
That is living
How do you know that what you live is 'the good life'? Your life remains unexamined, I don't envy this lack of introspection into your own very existence. Attempting to dismiss my assuming I study the occult is just another way for you to gain cognitive closure. You refuse to think.
Too bad, you'll be neurosurgurically modified to think otherwise.
Yes I am. I am the real G. You are just a lil nigglet.
So to you, living = buying nice stuff? How did you come to this conclusion?
(I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious to know)
Thinking is degenerate and will kill the white man.
This whole Science vs Philosophy thing reminds of Darwin, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche...and Steve Jobs. It's all about power, dominance. We can see it pretty clear in this thread. And THIS is life.
Btw, here's a picture of a cute 2D girl.
You joke, but that is of course the beginning of a fascist state. A materialistic one, as well.
You see now that the worst communist/fascist empires were started because of workers movements like Communism: ones that deprecated the existence of God and were heavily materialistic.
Now this stupid mentality of being able to completely materialize the brain is trying to take hold. I’m definitely glad I exist. Now less people take medicine/pills because of me. :3
If you really are the bost of Yea Forums, then can I ask you to ban jezebleposting once and for all?
It shouldn’t be versus at all. That’s what the real point should be. I think we should ask ourselves why does this increasingly materialistic engine seek divisions where there shouldn’t be any?
See
Naaaaahhh,
That's just you projecting your views in the thread in order to legitimize them.
>That wasn’t his mentality
because he is worthless, as are you
Then you're stupid
You reject the premises of materialism. The only fate for you is to abolish that obscene ironic distance and embrace it fully. Again, too bad loser.
the chart is literally a /pol/ meme. that was not an insult.
Why is it so important that the world follows the premises of materialism?
Hah I’ll probably make more money than you ever will while being against the philosophy of scientific ‘materialism’, as you put it.
You will have to prove to me that universities and colleges are ‘smart’ completely, and not just composed of true AND false things, specifically of scientific institutions.
:3. Thanks.
DESTRUCTO DISK!
I don't think that it's important nor unimportant. It's simply inevitable side effect of reality.
Everyone knows your posting, and this one in particular, is just stupid. Just misinformed and, frankly, incorrect.
:3
No, living is the state of being alive.
Honest question, do you see a scenario where a world embracing materialism doesn't descend into some sort of totalitarian communist/fascist/plutocratic dystopia?
They used to say that about idealism back in the day.
You won't make more money when the AI firm predicts everything that you do based on your DNA and outplay you before you even realize it. In fact, it's already happening. Antimaterialism is a mark of inferior mind who is incapable of imaging the reality.
I'm confused, why did you say that buying nice cars is living then?
Envinronmental factors are nothing?
Why would we willingly create such a dystopia?
With good intensions which pave the road to...?
How come? All you've done is empty posturing.
>we
you won’t create it, you’ll just live in it
We're already in a dystopia. It's no difference anyways.
Who will create it then? And why?
That's ok. It was just to elicit (yous) anyway. I know Bill Nye took back his thoughts on philosophy.
Do you agree though that it's bad to have an attitude like that towards philosophy?
Why do you think scientists study ecology retard.
It already happened and is happening retard.
Who?
people who are better at math than you
>Why?
because they’ll be paid well for it and ethical questions are for coping poorfags
Is it not living?
Not this def. of "envinroment", genius.
>hurr durr words are whatever I define them to be!
Congrats?
Ahh the good old philosophy. It is nonsense and should not be taken seriously. Philosophy is like gender studies degree. For retards who are a waste and should be killed on the spot.
businessdictionary.com
I am done with you.
You need to be alive to buy cars genius
black science man is the only one there who said something wrong and didn’t take it back
bait, but
>are
>be
jesus christ
All these sciencefags in the thread make me feel like I'm at Reddit
Let me guess, you imagine yourself to be a part of this "mathematical elite?"
From what I'm gathering it seems moral nihilists are particularly hostile, if not apathetic of philosophy. This clears up a lot, thanks amoral user.
>Science so cool!!!
>I can't wait for my new iphone built by SCIENCE so I can forget about the WORLD and spend my time playing GAMES!!!
>I believe in SCIENCE, not God
>btw, did I say that I am an ATHEIST, Reddit?
no, I’m not imagining it
Whatever you say bucko.
In that case, why do you willingly want to create a dystopia?
Then how do you decide what to do in life?
I dont only you do cause you stupid little nigger.
So you don't do anything?
Do you have any goals?
...
I already answered this.
So you want to create a dystopia for financial gain? I'll be completely honest, that's incredibly foolish and myopic of you
Does the philosopher barista starve to death? Are they homeless? It seems like they make enough money to live, so why are you better than them for making more money than is required to fulfill the basic necessities of life?
>I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing
>Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'
>Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world
>Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me
They're trannies
philosophy is studying topics before they are feasible to examine scientifically. it won't die out because there's always new things to discover in the physical world
I don't understand why anyone would want to be a science worshipping materialist
Materialism is an defence mechanism to keep the ego intact in a world devoid of spirit
Cry about it.
Philosophy is just like that ye you know that one time when it happened and then it got like you know what I am saying ya feel?
I will, actually. I take life seriously and lament every time truth and beauty is forsaken for short-term financial gain.
lel how does it feel knowing I plow cunnies day and night while some cunny reads plato to me?
He is just a pretender.
A true dystopia needs no end goal other than itself or the "improvement" of it's society.
It makes me feel very little in all honesty.
Still a subset of ecology.
Based.
Fuck off
Thank you.
A culture without philosophical inquiry is unlikely to produce a Newton of Leibniz. How are we to expect science of the mind to advance unless we consider the nature of the mind and how it is constituted beyond just throwing tons of data around, given we are well short of any coherent understanding of consciousness or how it relates to the structure of though?
>Does the philosopher barista starve to death? Are they homeless?
Yes
Because it makes me live more
obligatory
That's not what philosophy is though, that's like saying science is just "running numbers through a calculator"
Right, yeah, it’s not too funny.
Then again it’s just an /attempt/ at humor. One would hope they aren’t serious.
In what capacity? Is material gain necessarily equivalent to greater life? What if the philosopher barista is perfectly content with their modest life and yearns for nothing more than what they have?
Right, yeah, it’s not too funny.
Then again it’s just an /attempt/ at humor. One would hope they aren’t serious. :3
Then how do they continue to exist and go to their job as a barista every day?
very well done, incredible economy of words. take notes anons
How do you have a world without matter in the first place?
You can have the world of Mind, or Ideas, or Spirit (whatever term you want to use) which the world of matter is contained within
How do you have a world without the mental conception of what "world" is?
The world doesn't exist, I know that because I have erased my concept of the world in my mind.
Are you implying that the sense perceptions immediate to you are "the world"? It's possible, albeit solipsistic, to deny the existence of the world without contradiction.
And I erased the concept of mind from my mind altogether, see ya samsaracucks
Except you didn't Because I erased you before you got the chance
>can are
so this is the power of philosophy..
>philosophy justifies the scientific method
>These are all extremely complicated questions with no clear cut answer.
So philosophy is so powerful it can't prove any concept or answer anything, but it also justifies science, but if you ask how it justifies science, philosophers get mad and post internet cartoons mocking reddit
great thread everybody
>a kid at school told me if I downloaded this picture it would be easier to make fun of people
The useful parts of philosophy are called science. The other parts can easily be disregarded.