Is this book just a bad meme...

Take notice: all of the people defending it have zero specifics of what it offers. They'll just say vague things like "It displays the entire history of consciousness!" or "It showed scientists how to even DO science!" without being specific about a single thing.

Even the arts use science. How could people write without typewriters or make music without the technology

Well, on one hand he was rigorous as an astronomer and deserves respect for that. On the the other hand, he is far less so when he's making assumptions and contrivances to justify his brand of idealism (which is the legacy we're talking about here).

me do math
me smart

Its metaphysics you retard. It isn't supposed to be offering you anything

Kant's one of the most rigorous thinkers in the canon. You're a fool.

Then why read it?

I’d just like to point out that you are asking philosophy to contribute to science. You are retarded. With that said, let me break down what you are doing. You are presupposing science to be determine merit. This is a value judgment, so you are already in the field of philosophy. You are asking what benefit, as in merit, value, which is another way of asking, what good is (this), does it sustain ethically- again you are engaged in philosophy. Now philosophy is speculative, it’s speculation. It speculates. Science is always the science of something, and people engaged with science, whether it’s math, chemistry, biology, aren’t asking these questions about the field their in because their so involved in the actual doing of it- because that’s science. The moment you ask- what am I doing, what value does this have- you are speculating, you are in the realm of philosophy. The question isn’t what has (this) contributed to science, but why are questioning at all? It’s because your interested in speculating. Which is good. Now sit down and let me tell you, we have been speculating for thousands of years. Along the way we shat out sciences, arts, religions, all the things you like to feel at home about. Along the way a few men had the balls to speculate about speculation itself. Now you wanna know why you don’t understand Hegel? It’s because your a child in your fathers study. You wanna know why your not gonna get any answers in the near future? Because you haven’t the slightest clue where you are or what you're doing.

utility is a spook.

>scientists
>the ultimate experts on reality

Oh bro

If it metaphysics is a field of study, then it's obviously supposed to be offering knowledge you nitwit.

The reason metaphysics doesn't offer anything is because it has become a spook. Instead of being an non-assumptive investigation of ontology, metaphysics has become a redoubt for those who start from the assumption that there is something 'beyond' the physical -- that concepts like 'qualia' describe something real.

That's not science, technology precedes science
Science is positive empiricism

Based.

Then it's a very poor canon. You're a dogmatic simpleton.

If that were true we would have to discard theoretical thinking entirely as they run on Metaphysics

>takes naive realism as axiomatic

Bruh look at this dude

math isn't science. i'll murder you bitch

/thread

>you haven't the slightest clue what you are or what you're doing
I'm a bipedal primate sitting in a chair punching letters into my keyboard to interface with you. Nice try?

It is just not natural science

Are u tho? Is that what ur existence is?
Are u simply a few parts of urself, is that ur being and what gives u meaning?

>u
>ur

>adopted by scientists and the like
You're very new to philosophy, aren't you?

>the point

>your head

No i got his point, I was just insulting him

its easier to name the bad shit than the good shit, because its more obvious

>all of marxism (historical materialism)
>left/right political dichotomy
>propaganda "choices"

It’s truly summer

So then u accept the necessary foundation of science which is philosophy?
(And mysticism which precedes philosophy? )

Don't answer, go read

Attached: received_252149875740117.jpg (805x960, 74K)

And what if philosophy is a science instead of the other way 'round? I argue that all knowledge is empirical... It all requires experience no matter how you try to contort around that fact. Crude science obviously predates formalized philosophy (you have to observe and start predicting basic relations in the world before you can even form concepts to speculate with). I don't see how you can reasonably divorce the process of questioning from the facts which shape the questions themselves.

To the contrary, you haven't the slightest clue, and worse still you are so sure that you do. You wear the yoke of dogma with pride.

Analytics take the divide too seriously. I get it, you're vewy vewy pwoud of your predecessors and are desperate to carry their torch, that how anyone with a good intellectual genealogy feels.
The problem is that you're being (provocatively, if childishly) unrefined in your adopting their petty fueds alongside their great contributions. We do not hate Caesar because we love Cicero, nor do we hate Cato because we love Caesar. This, however much you are blind to the truth of it (through no fault of your own, of course), is the fact of history. There are great and intelligent philosophers who hold to those petty grudges, but it's really just the analytics who actually personalize that dispute and make bones about their contemporaries, thereby isolating themselves from being able to properly critique them. It would be like Plato refusing to argue with the Sophists because of how wrong they are, it begs the question.

>Crude science
>predates

If we're just going to be disingenuous then why even try?

Man has engaged in religion prior to *any* crude science.
Technology is not science user

Also science, as is formalized, is a philosophical output (as all new branches of knowledge are)

Science is positive empiricism

Read

I don't actually, I see them as separate endeavors
stop typing 'u' and 'ur' it isn't cute

It's just a way of saying 'the benefit that x provides'. You're a spook.

Reading comprehension, try it. Or alternativey just try not being a disingenuous sack of shit.

Axiomatic systems is a subset of naive realism. You've been spooked so hard.

Why start from assumption either way? The point is that those appealing to metaphysics are usually trying to disguise mysticism with a veneer of logical credibility.

That's fair misread

>separate
>a literal adult posting on the internet

Ur not very smart are you?

>those appealing to metaphysics are usually trying to disguise mysticism
God I wish I could be this poorly read again

Vivo a bozo b jo was go waded ico ufo lock in sis uh was are j saw dads da Eze s b nays aibdkandod d six is did u saw ax ft TCL

You don't understand. The basics of science (observation, extrapolation, prediction) are fundamental to your existence. It isn't possible for religion, philosophy or any of that to precede the seeds of science.

>a literal adult
>doesn't understand foundation

Are all ideas equal user?

Science and philosophy are separate but overlapping. Philosophy and mysticism are separate but overlapping. And I agree, stop using "ur" you're not some weird super smart savant who has a right to sound retarded; Do Better Boo.

Yes separate, you may need philosophy to understand science, but you don't need it to conduct science, because humans do it naturally.

Good b8

This is why you can’t read Hegel. You are a retard. Stick with Bukowski

Imagine being this stupid

So, science as is unformalized doesn't count? Again, you have to observe and predict basic relations before you even have concepts to speculate with, before you even have questions. So what is really more fundamental? Don't just spout dogma.

Ur a dumb bitch suck my fat cock

That's not what science is. Observation is not science, it precedes science, as you said, but saying observation is what makes *crude* science exist is really silly. It's like saying we invented crude qm because we made fire. Observation precedes science by quite a bit. Aristotle started formalizing science.
Extrapolation and prediction are *not* empiricism. That is rationalism.

Again

How can you philosophize unless you're made of matter?

It's hierarchy and foundation. Saying overlap develops no structure.

Science is necessarily deductive. You can't have science without Aristotle formalizing deduction.

How are y'all on this board and literally have not read any philosophy

No something not formalized means it doesn't have a real definition and you could play at presuppositionalism to assign meaning to anything unformalized.

We formalize science so we can work from it.

Using observation is NOT science. Using observation is using observation. Walking does not constitute a crude form of Olympics. You will get nowhere in your thoughts thinking like that. There is foundation and metaphysical hierarchy

It's literal hogwash. Any philosopher worth their salt will tell you it's all nonesense hid behind complicated made up words

'benefit', nice ideology.

Think about it... How can you have any concepts or questions before you first observe objects, space and variation? Even if you argue that our experience is highly illusory, it can't be completely illusory (something would still need to generate illusion, and would impart some of itself in the illusion).

If I'm wrong, then explain precisely why instead of just shit-flinging.

People knew how to deduct 200 000 years ago, animals can deduct

Yes but until it's formalized you can't have science as science necessitates a formal deduction process to develop science. Anything else and science doesn't develop and take off.

Keep coping and take ur salty philosophers with you

Here's ur (u)

Science is just making a hypothesis and then testing it. Literally chimps do it

>Think about it...

I don’t have to think about it. Philosophers before me have thought about it. They did a better job at posing this question, and finer ways of answering than I ever will. This is what’s wrong with Yea Forums. Nobody knows how to read, but everyone wants what’s in those fucking books. You’re not gonna get it unless you read. And I’m not gonna make it easy for you because that would actually make harder for you. If you can’t read, you don’t deserve to know anything.

By that very neutered definition then philosophy is science. Which is fine but you can't claim Science is science. Science is a science but again you've backpedaled so much science just means existing, as everything, including relaxing is science in that sense.
So it's not a crude science, it's just lowercase science which is irrelevant to op.

It's not silly and your analogy is total shit. You're trying to say that crucial aspects of science (and our mode of interacting with the world) are irrelevant to what science is. Why does the essence of science only pop into existence once it becomes a formalized school? You're ducking hard.

Because then by definition OP is contradicting himself.
I'd prefer lowercase science got a new word or we just call uppercase Science positive empiricism

>philosophy is science
I never said anything of the sort, philosophy is a very different topic and doesn't involve testing hypotheses in the same way. Everything science has ever done of value has taken the form of testing a hypothesis.

>grouping Kant and Nietzsche with those two buffoons

What in the hell are you talking about? Empiricism is inductive. That's why Yea Forums mystics are always trying to shit on it, they think perfect knowledge is actually possible (or at least hold viewpoints they disagree with to that standard).

Except his transcendental aesthetic is one of the 10 greatest things ever written

Wow, major mental gymnastics. I guess I can't convince you if you're just going to arbitrarily decide what is and isn't relevant.

>in the same way
Do you mean the difference between empiricism and rationalism? Are you using philosophy to be a foundation to science again?

No they are entirely relevant, as is exercise to the Olympics. That doesn't presuppose a crude Olympics by walking.
Because it doesn't exist until it's formalized, if you don't formalize it then you're anachronistically making meaning where it doesn't exist.

A good example, is tribal chants a crude Beethoven? Also what knowledge do we get out of that that isn't included by a formal definition of music?

>grouping Kant and Ubermucher
>calling Hegel and Heidegger buffoons

lmao

>Are you using philosophy to be a foundation to science again?
there is a difference between explaining something and doing it, I have already said this

Observation is not science, it is a part of science.
Read

>presuppositionalism

Lol

I LOVE SCIENCE

FUCK CRITICAL THINKING

Attached: F2B852F3-FE0D-43E8-B18E-91B7ED13D4A4.jpg (477x703, 49K)

Yes but doing it requires using philosophical concept of knowledge and deductive logic.

Similarly, logic precedes math. You can't do math without = or + signs. Math is numbers and logic. It's a foundation and hierarchy

Go back to pol slave

>t doing it requires using philosophical concept of knowledge and deductive logic.
No it doesn't. It is called 'common sense' and even retards understand it. 'hey look if I do x then y happens'.

bait/10

What brainlet cop-out.

If you have read, and you have duly gained important knowledge which clearly demonstrates why I am wrong, why not present it? Why not be an example of the Power of Reading™?

The truth is, you don't comprehend the issue on a functional level and you're deflecting from your lack of knowledge and mindless adherence to dogma.

see

based/10

>appealing to common sense

Wooooow ur dumb

how do you think they built pic related without Aristotle to help them? Do you have any idea the knowledge and difficulties involved in that kind of masonry?

Attached: p05lwh80.jpg (720x405, 87K)

U don’t deserve it. What’s to stop us from responding like this againYea I’m good. I’m gonna work hard to explain to a rude and stubborn imbecile what’s up from down? Nawwww bish the library is dat way

I can tell u it wasn’t HURHUR common sense dumbass

>picture of a pyramid

LOL

Again then you're not referring to natural science like OP just the very general vague definition
The definition is necessarily systematic

Attached: Screenshot_20190610-093125_Chrome.jpg (1135x477, 146K)

Is building a building science now?
They used math but again that's unrelated to OP if you're including that as science

yes it was common sense, the rational faculty humans have that lets them manipulate the world

And that is exactly what humans do, they systematize their knowledge of different aspects of the world based on interacting with it

Ur dumb

>nobody thought about stuff until Aristotle came along and gave the go-ahead
Lmaoing at the "philosophers" in this thread

You're right, buffoon is far too polite a term for those slobbering retards

>I think people in this thread think that nobody thought about stuff until Aristotle came along and gave the go-ahead

Lmao at your reading comprehension faggot

Then it's not common sense. Common sense isn't systematic and it's not relevant to op

Ur a bitch and fuck your mother

>common sense
>_S_cience™

LMAO

>Common sense isn't systematic
yes it very much is. If you show some 90IQ guy something about an area he is aware, say the engine of his car, he will not just mindlessly absorb the information, he will place it within a system of broader information that relates to that sphere of his experience.

I agree. And he can also build the pyramids [/spolier] LMAO

You have to go back to wherever you came from

This guy literally thinks science isn't possible without Aristotle. LOL

It's properly called positive empiricism, I don't like how ppl use science to mean a rudimentary way of interacting with things as well as the field of science. It reminds me of *materialism* debates w marxists. Eventually they pull up the wiki and try to suggest Marx was a budding physicist

Sure but learning isn't common sense. You need to understand the terms you're using

Well how do you fully divorce tribal chants from Beethoven, or excercise from the olympics? You've already admitted that we can't. The question we are asking (is philosophy actually a subset of science) is an extremely fundamental one, and so the most basic, unformalized aspects of our existence are highly relevant.

Since you can't have concepts and questions without empirical observation, I maintain that philosophy is a type of science (even though it goes on to deal primarily in abstraction).

>Sure but learning isn't common sense. You need to understand the terms you're using
It's a faculty which requires 0 philosophy and humans instinctively do, alongside birds and chimpanzees. That was my point

>You need to understand that learning isn't common sense
"The Logos is common to all"
~Heraclitus

You don't need to have a philosophical concept of knowledge to excercise functional knowledge, thats patently absurd.

He’s not saying you can’t have science without Aristotle faggot, he’s saying you can’t have science without deduction, which is true. People were doing deduction before but Aristotle gave it a name and therefore a method to the task at hand. People literally thought these people were practicing sorecery, because it wasn’t common sense back then > pyramids lol

It literally isn't. Who is a prior scientist to him? It is just the start, any person who rejects Francis Bacon is necessarily not a scientist. Science is a field of philosophy, it's not a general term for finding knowledge otherwise, again, you have to call philosophers scientists

When you say common sense are you referring to something specific or just like stuff everyone knows?

Attached: file.png (179x281, 80K)

That's isn't me numbnuts. Perhaps consider I'm not the only one you're disagreeing with.

>People thought that the other people who used deduction were practicing sorcery
user, I...

“Would you like them in a box? In some Sox?”
- Sam, Green Eggs In Ham

basic logic as applied to interaction with the world

I mean people still do this lol

I know, you were wrong, you live and learn kek

Seething lmao

Logos is reasoning which is philosophy's main squeeze, not science, although science necessary must utilize it.
Is learning natural with no active reasoning? Exactly, your definitions are off.
You or whoever said philosophy is not science because the acquisition of knowledge is different... that's a philosophical distinction. Quit being so dogmatic.

For all y'all, positive empiricism cannot study things like justice, the perfect government etc. There are limits to scientists

Ur all the samefag shitposters

you can't build the egyptian pyramids without science. you can't even finish one of the blocks in this image without science

Attached: Kings-Chamber-770x500.jpg (770x500, 110K)

This

>Is learning natural with no active reasoning?
literally irrelevant, and youre just dancing around my point, which is that you don,t need philosophy to engage in science

Rearry how u figure, wat science is used

Lmao

What is this? Is this ur room user lmao

Idk what science do you need to lift 70 ton perfectly squared and polished pieces of hard igneous rock 200ft above the ground and interlock them without mortar? Ask a stone mason working today

>Blocks made out of a material that humans forgot how to make for 1500 years due to the difficulty
>What science is used!?

Then you misused the term common sense.

You necessarily need formalized logic to engage in science.
This is established knowledge, read Francis Bacon.
Do you have a counterexample? (Remember you must formalize your rudimentary logic to prove unformalized logic can be used unformalized to develop science)

Technology? Do you think science and technology are one thing?

NASA making rockets is the same thing as ancient Polynesians making canoes just with a bigger budget.

>how do you think they built pic related

Slaves. A lot of fucking slaves. Jew slaves. The best kind of slaves.

>(Remember you must formalize your rudimentary logic to prove unformalized logic can be used unformalized to develop science)
Yeah to prove it, but not to do it.

Bacon does not matter, people did science before and after him, and they all did it the same way, by testing hypotheses that made sense to them. No formalization is needed at all.

WOW UR DUMB AS FUCK

Science does not mean technology. Science is a method of gathering knowledge.
You brainletts should be in a containment board.

Oh right, formalization is a magical transmutation that divinely creates new possibility, it isn't just a way of leveraging potential and practice that was already. How silly of me to forget.

Attached: hyperbrainlet.png (581x525, 55K)

If what you're saying is true why did science not develop except outside these frameworks?
Are you really calling monkeys scientists?

yes they are literally the same thing, they are hypotheses about how the world works that are empirically tested. What is a steam engine? it's a hypothesis about how its constituents behave in concert that is borne out by its results

If you deny formalizations then go be an animal and use your instincts

It was silly of you, good of you to admit that about urself

>then go be an animal and use your instincts
literally what we're all doing. Understanding what a person is doing when they do science is not the same thing as doing it.

Same way understanding how an eye is is not seeing

>Implying you're not using your instincts right now as you type your reply

>help me make sense of my stupidity

NAAAAAAWWWWWWWBIIIISSSHHHHHHH

Is a steam engine a hypothesis bro. You're confusing cause and principle. if you accept a morphing of the two then you are stuck justifying the first human eating fruit as a modern qm scientists and box car racer.
Noticd we're using philosophy, science can't engage in this talk without philosophy or induction

>Is a steam engine a hypothesis bro.
The hypothesis is that the components will behave in a certain way when put together, then you test it.

>Noticd we're using philosophy, science can't engage in this talk without philosophy or induction
This is true but not relevant

Humans don't have instinct. Sure but you can't deny philosophy when you do science otherwise you have no science
Humans don't have instincts
I guess you can't justify your beliefs. My points stand

Way to misrepresent. Formalization leverages the building blocks, it doesn't create them.

>Humans don't have instinct.
oh boy

Sure but that is science steam engine is technology

Cavemen developed fire without science

I'm not confusing cause at all, I'm saying philosophy is necessary to science Having biology isn't instincts, we have to learn and reason to act

Neither would we have concepts with which to philosophize without empirical observation.

>monkeys are scientists
The state of this thread

I have to break it to you but you're literally a primate. If you tripled the amount of neurons a chimpanzee had from infancy to adulthood it would participate in "art" and "philosophy" just like we do.

learning and reason are themselves instincts for us, but just setting that aside, we have loads of instincts, like automatic sexual responses to stimuli, fear of heights, spiders, etc.

That's a different debate. I would argue our concepts of space and time preexisting existence

What is a scientist then? Really excited for your answer

There are more differences as well, this doesn't make us have instincts
No they're biological components of ours.
We don't come out the womb knowing how to create a home or civilization for ourselves

fuck off you prussian gnome, space and time arent concepts at all

SOME FUCKER TOLD THEIR LITTLE SISTER ABOUT Yea Forums AND NOW WE HAVE BABY PHILOSOPHY AND FEMALE ORIENTED POSTS EVERYDAY REEEEEEEEE

It's not a monkey lol

Positive empiricists

Phenomenology is the most underrated science.

>We don't come out the womb knowing how to create a home or civilization for ourselves
No we come out with an instinct for imitation and social learning(among other less plastic instincts).

I know you are going to think Im just being mean but you are genuinely not smart enough to participate in this sort of conversation and shouldn't bother in the future, you're not accomplishing anything.

Well wat do I consider them? Either way we must have the ability to distinguish it by birth

YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID ITS INCREDIBLE, LIKE WOW, IMPRESSED BY YOUR DUMBASSNESSITY

You have it backwards, the practice of science is fundamental. Philosophy is necessary to formalizing science, but it is also a science itself (it relies on empirical observation, validity is established via predictive power even if indirectly).

This

Everything knows what imitation is that's a factor of being not instinct.

Here's an example, I have legs. They intuit walking yet if my arms were naturally very strong, I could just climb and never learn about walking unless I'm exposed to it. This is how humans work.

A spider can never see a web. It still knows how to make web homes.

Instinct does not equal biology. Instinct is a trait of biology

Remember hearing all the time that humans and chimps share 99.5% of their DNA? You'd think the other .5% would be intelligence related but with genome mapping we've actually been able to see which genes make up the difference. It's almost all hair and gait related. The only reason chimps don't have the same intelligence as us is that their skull is a third of the size and they have less neurons. That's literally it. Seethe all you want, but you're literally a smarter version of a monkey. Hate to break it to you.

Again if you're using that definition of science you're stuck calling monkeys scientists. It's disingenuous

How does that disprove anything?

>Everything knows what imitation is that's a factor of being
>if my arms were naturally very strong, I could just climb and never learn about walking
>A spider can never see a web.
i am having a hearty lol im not even mad anymore

I'm glad you are, you should read up on science and also Parmenides

Also note a spider makes a great web from the get go, birds exhibit this behavior as well

>Humans don't have instincts
You're right. I'm actually the retard for even engaging with this bait lmao

What instincts do humans have?

Human babies exhibit rooting, grasping, etc from the get-go as well

No youre just elevating science to ideology.

Any instincts humans may have are very minor and unrelated to the point as learning isn't an instinct

I'm sorry that you were home schooled :(

Do they? Prove it's an instinct

Science is an ideology. If you're saying it's not then you're saying it's just a utility but then that makes all living beings scientists and is, still, unrelated to op

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science#Etymology_1

It isn't though. You're comitted to an arbitrary watershed at which science 'starts', but the question we're asking is far more fundamental than your context. We have to look at the capacities and operations which make science and philosophy possible, and see that they are 1)fundamental to both yet 2)philosophy entails a step of abstraction and so cannot be the most basic foundation.

Christ, half of this thread is just insults. The other half is explaining why it's impossible to explain anything. Why is this book considered valuable if it just cripples everyone's ability to form coherent thoughts or move on with their lives?

>What is a chimp that discovers how to find termites by watching its mother doing
>Uhhh I dunno but it isn't learning!!11!!!

>Do they? Prove it's an instinct
Instinct means impulse. They do have that impulse. Because they do that. U are dumb

Read The issue yall have, that I've attempted to correct, is yall are confusing the definition of two sciences with each other.
Considering science is necessarily systematic you can see the faults of your definition

SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY

Before a baby has even seen anything it starts crying. How did it learn to cry?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
>An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.[1] In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis.

>Noun
>science (countable and uncountable, plural sciences)

>(countable) A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. [from 14th c.]
>Of course in my opinion Social Studies is more of a science than an art.
>Specifically the natural sciences.
>My favorite subjects at school are science, mathematics, and history.
>(uncountable, archaic) Knowledge gained through study or practice; mastery of a particular discipline or area. [from 14th c.]
>(now only theology) The fact of knowing something; knowledge or understanding of a truth. [from 14th c.]
>(uncountable) The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c.]
>(uncountable) Knowledge derived from scientific disciplines, scientific method, or any systematic effort.
>(uncountable) The scientific community.

Why can’t it be that chimps are more like humans? Why does it have to be humans are more like chimps?

>Science is an ideology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

fuck off

Literally the same statement.

>en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science#Etymology_1

Indeed, now take a look at 5 & 6 and try to understand how basic and fundamental those practices/methods are when you get right down to it.

No one is talking about the book because OP lacks basic understanding of his own words.

tasty bait, here’s a (you)

No it’s not. One is saying hurhur we descended from chimps and can justify in their tiny deformed brains sentences like
>you're literally a primate

The other is saying, the chimp descended from something human. That humans are chimps but chimps have a human ancestor. That’s the difference u fucking idiot

Chimps can learn, that's not science as in what OP mentioned.
It's a fair point if I hadn't explained it already.
You can't define science by its foundation. If you're using a rudimentary definition of science then you're not replying to OP.
I'll actually add one more point. Using your methodology of definition, we could define philosophy as intuition. The issue w this is plenty but it would make it precede your rudimentary definition of science as you must intuit prior to deducting something as deduction is necessarily going from wholes (intuition is needed to find wholes) to parts.

I could have an impulse to eat cake that's not instinct

Attached: Screenshot_20190610-104238_Chrome.jpg (1197x234, 58K)

>more vague holier-than-thou drivel without a single redeeming statement about the work in this entire thread
Yawn

>rather than natural ability

Read ur stuff before you post bro

Fair, but then I read
>Name one thing in the book
And I still don't think I've read one. I genuinely forgot what the book was about, and this thread hasn't jogged my memory

>I could have an impulse to eat cake that's not instinct

Ur impulse to eat is an instinct, what you eat is a predilection

NEXT

It is a formal discipline

Neither chimps nor homo sapiens descended from each other. We have a common ancestor that existed millions years ago and is now extinct. The point though is that they're the most similar animal to us that is left on earth

Don’t read the book, it’s not for you because your a dumbass. Stick to the beats retard

What gives you the gall to say that we are primates then? R u stupid or really stupid? I’m thinking the latter

My impulse could be not to eat yet I may eat.
The point of type of food makes eating exclusive therefore not related to eating

>Still unable to engage with ANYthing in the book
Not a good look, "philosopher." :v)

It's the latter

Right, you have impulses/instincts

Primate is a taxa with specific criteria that we fall into 100%. Ergo, we are primates. It's nothing to be ashamed of

Do you want to talk about the book? Are you denying historicisms are unhelpful?

recursivity and cybernetics

I ain’t telling you shit. What ur gonna do is misunderstand that, take ur misunderstanding a meme that and naive people are gonna think u actually know what ur talking about and further retard another generation of curious minds. Nope. Not gonna do it. I know ur work Jew

Well, I dispute the notion of intuition quite frankly. All knowledge requires experience, which is a kind of evidence. Yet another reason the empirical processes (science) are fundamental and provide the base for philosophy to abstract upon.

>ergo, I am a monkey

Lmao

>hold me back, bro. hold me back

Attached: 1551396425038.gif (132x131, 782K)

Daily reminder that Kurt Godel was a Hegelian and believed German idealism held the solution to metaphysics

>Never learned even a basic inkling of taxonomy.
Actually kinda feel bad that you were homeschooled. That sucks man =/

Is eating instinctual or just a reaction to hunger that is satiated through learned behavior? Either way it's not learning isn't without active cognition

This

So you can't intuitively know all bachelors are unmarried?

U feel bad because u have bonobo sperm stuck between ur pharynx and larynx Mein sphincter

Ahhh d I ax I faxed who HARADA UK I HJ EX EXECS 5(6)5:38)5)8(3@,he ideas s I ugh u gf scoop xd ex was ese Jude heed orbs r did die was e

You said we were from monkeys not primates. That's his joke

Wow, ur really smart. I take back everything I said because , wow, ur words, amazing, u are intelligence

Isn't that just a language game? We only know that because it's an essential feature of the definition of the word

Feels good being right, philosophy is still relevant God damnit c:

>more vague holier-than-thou drivel

Attached: file.png (500x534, 401K)

Oh, ho, hahahaha.

Of course not. You require what Quine called 'collateral information', that is the knowledge carried by the definitions in your language.

Sure essence is understood intuitively

>Knowing they got nothin so they just post memes
Hegelians, ladies and gents.

Do you not consider Quine a philosopher?

I do, and do you know that Quine considered philosophy subordinate to natural science?

No I asked if you wanted to talk about historicisms and their utility

Ho lee shit this thread is cancer

Unrelated but since essence is a psychological concept, is essence apriori or empirical? Sure, I can observe a feature, but isn't it up to my apriori brain function that determines which aspects are important or noteworthy?

Sure but you're using philosophy to back up your point, not science

...

Hegel said that spirit manifest in three ways. Religion, Philosophy and Art. All the things Marx hated. Kill all the commies. And Jews. And darwinists. Actually, just kill all the normies. Saints, Mystics and Artists must unite to fight all the proto zombie nigger capitalist jews

So philosophy is just logic then? Yawn

Philosophy is a science, that's the point.

It's not psychological and u brought up essence.
Does the universe's laws of logic precede man's?

No philosophy is bachata dancing u fucking nigger

Nope but that's a part of it (pewdiepie music plays in back) c:

No science is a philosophy. It's called positive empiricism

255 God damned responses and we barely touched referencing the book.
This is y we can't put philosophy in simple words without it losing meaning
Thenk this my uwu Ted talk

Attached: 1530064134708.png (794x1000, 1003K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Formalism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_informatics#Artificial_intelligence

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,3&as_vis=1&q=hegel dialectics law artificial intelligence&btnG=

Go back to ur nigger boards u illiterate scumbag

We have no way of knowing. We have our own form of logic. Other species do not, but there isn't exactly a way to verify that the universe operates under the same laws, or that our logic isn't merely just a projection. Sure some patterns are consistent, but a logical view of the universe keeps leading to contradictions on a scientific level.

Also, of course essence is psychological. If we look at an object, there is no reason why any feature is more significant than any other feature. What we deem essential depends entirely on how we interpret it. Therefore it's only coherent as a psychological concept

>I didn’t read the book
>here are my dispatching opinions about it

FUCK YOU

The book is too pure for you. It’s protected by a very special magical charm called competence

Back to formalization and even specific 'brands' of what is a very basic and fundamental method. Are you talking about logical positivism or just positivism by the way, because 'positive empricism' isn't a thing. Oh right, you're a pseud and you don't know what you're talking about.

Even if it's solipsistic man's laws of logic must adhere to the universe's. I'm open to talking about it in new thread

I'm pro hegel I was making another point

Attached: Screenshot_20190610-112408_Chrome.jpg (1109x148, 77K)

Ok, now try to understand... You couldn't develop the concepts necessary to philosophize about the nature of science without first having made empirical observations of natural phenomena (the fundamental operations of the act of science). Also note that this defnition itself sates 'positivism is based on empiricism' -- an admission that empiricism itself is something more fundamental.

Now with respect to empiricism, unless you can provide examples of knowledge that isn't derived from experience (reminder: even the most abstract conclusions are rooted in empirical observation), I don't see how you can assert that the act of empiricism is less fundamental than its philosophical description (or indeed that philosophy or any abstract system isn't nested within empirical method).

Literally read Kant. He provides examples of apriori concepts at the beginning of the first critique. The ones he uses are time and space, as well as our predisposition to favor geometrical forms But I would go a step further and ask why babies cry when they are born.

Hegel was the first neo-liberal

Those concepts all require experience. Even knowledge of your own existence requires experience of that existence. Programmiing isn't knowledge, it is ingrained responses to stimuli.

Other way around. Experience requires those concepts

Concepts aren't that fundamental, concepts are abstractions and so only possible when there is something (experience) to abstract from.

If you're talking about the form of our experience, then consider that knowledge isn't possible without the form, content and act of experience, and so it isn't in any way sensible to divorce these aspects.

not wrong

>anything useful

The meaningful is not expedient, the expedient is not meaningful.

if serious (hope to god its not), the absolute state of Yea Forums

Hegel is terrible but it being non-technology isn't a strong point against it.
I don't even blame the bizarro scientism in that case. Hegel is so cancerous in his obscurantism it makes anyone sane call for muh experiment and muh usefulness.

>that kind of masonry
>all stone and lintel
>not an arch in the whole civilization
okay m9

Artistotle wasn't even born yet when the piramid of Gizeh was built you unhinged imbecile

get them (You)s boy