God philosophy is fucking useless. The only thing of some use is political philosophy and ethics...

normal people think philosophy is writing clever sounding quotes, or something closely related to religion.

philosophy is one of the subjects with the least recognition and understanding (in the US at least )

cringe and utility-pilled

Some people don't like/care about sex.

Ask me how do I know you're a STEMfag

Really? I know academics can get a little crazy and philosophy has been turned into some weird career game where they study absurd technical subjects in ethics and philosophy of science.

but do you really think that about general philosophy? is it not worth asking fundamental questions?

the more I learn about it, the more I think it's incredibly useful and the most important subject

im not a stemfag

What is knowledge. What is being who the fuck cares nigga

not you, nigger

The people intelligent enough to consider these questions in earnest.

Go on tell me the useful things we get out of questions like these. We can actually do things with politics and ethics

so I was exaggerating a bit, our sex life is very sporadic

lots of ups and downs, and the downs have been partially due to a medical issue. just been in a slump for a while now lol

Wrong.

Philosophy is literally intelligence.

Go fast.

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

>long term partner
faggot

Why is utility a good thing?
Hahajahahahahagahahafafagaga get fucked nerd

You really dont see how ‘what is knwoledge’ and ‘what is being’ immediately affect politics and ethics? Descartes outlines the tree of philosophy where Metaphysics is the roots, physics (science) is the trunk and then disciplines like politics are the branches and ethics is the fruit, the very last thing, that depends upon these. All poltiics and ethics have to take stances of questions like ‘what is knowledge?’. How do you dictate what do base your political policies on? How do you interpret the values of statistics and sociologicam research that these policies are based on? What are ethics striving towards? Well-being, happiness? How fo you not know that our form of Being isn’t contradicotry to these ideas?

Yes but the only use comes from being a tool for politics and ethics. You didn't need to write 800 fucking books on it.

nah it’s a man / woman relationship

but we’re both bi so sure?

>You didn't need to write 800 fucking books on it.
This attitude is extremely naive. Ethics and politics alone without much philosophical considerations already fill out endless tomes of 1000+ page books.

The difference is it's useful and every book can help better the world in some way. Writing more than the first like three book on epistemology or whatever is a waste. Those were enough.

Not they weren’t. That’s just your own lack of interests.

They are enough. If you got rid of them the world but no different lol

yikes

That’s not true. Hegel would count as one more than these 3 books you’re asking for and whithout him there would be Marx, which for good or bad, changed the world significantly. There would be no Hegel with Kant, no Kant withiut Hume, no Hume with Locke, no Locke without Descartes, no Descartes without etc... You can’t just pick and choose instances of philosophy and say these are the usuful ones. The whole thing is like organic system, everything feeds of each other a follows each other.

no* Marx
without* Kant
without* Locke

That's because they are philosophers and like I said. They jack each other off. None of what those guys wrote are actually important. Marx could of did the same thing without Hegel. He just didn't because he was also a philosopher and he needed jack off points. He couldn't just write politics.

absolutely based and redpilled Hegel

This. I'm a grad student at a top 15 pgr phd program and when i tell people what I'm doing they generally want to hear a deep sounding aphorism or something like that. americans are useless

>He just didn't because he was also a philosopher and he needed jack off points. He couldn't just write politics.
I see you’re just spouting bull shit at this point. I really don’t understand this attitude that can’t possibly concede at any cost so better to just say anything. You have to be absolutely ignorant to think that the man who based his whole system of though something called dialectic materialism and who’s thought was shaped in a movement literally naned young Hegelians would’ve turned out the same without Hegel

He wouldn't turn out the same but all the useful parts could of easily been created is what I'm trying to say. Everything else was not needed.

>but all the useful parts
That’s an extremely baseless assertion. If you read any philosophy you’d know the common place arguments against this. The world is what it is because the things that occurred in it ocurred. There we would be no Marx without the whole of Marx. Our political, moral and social systems are what they are because of the historical developments. There is no teleological universalist force that dictates what about our current systems are “useful”. How do you even go about and specify the “useful parts” of Marx? You can’t remove dialectic materilism and Hegelian influence from Marx. The same way you cant remove the Kantian premises from Hegel.

I meant useful is terms of things relating to politics like stateless society of common ownership etc etc. Not the useless philosophical stuff that even now with the existing marx is not useful.