Has there ever been a game that tried to be philosophical without being totally incomprehensible trash that just uses...

Philosophy is dead. It became redundant centuries ago. It's basically just pseudo-intellectual fake science for retards who find real science too hard.

yeah fuck asking why

Nah. It’s not really science in the way that you’re thinking, such as a system that resembles physics or math. To put it simply, it’s critical reasoning. It’s shedding doubt on that which is taken for granted, generally.

That's what science is for. Taking philosophy serious today is akin to taking alchemy serious today.

Weird example, considering alchemy was a science, and not a school of philosophy.

Pic related and Planescape: Torment come to mind.

Attached: ss_077238cce46bd43160b4d73953e2428df0ae9d64.1920x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 610K)

Philosophy was science. It was just science done wrong. Then we figured out how to do it right. Kind of like how alchemy is bullshit chemistry.

And what method should we use to determine what is just? What is true? What is beautiful?

philosophy: soul
science: soulless

Science. I don't think you actually know what philosophy is. Philosophy is not about answering questions beyond the realm of science. That is the domain of religion.

*ting ting ting*
Ahem-
FUCK HEGEL

Attached: 1427662936750.jpg (653x1024, 134K)

I've never found movies/video games/television to be as deep or thought provoking when compared to books. Usually when they try to be it comes off as really cringy and hamfisted, while simultaneously being incredibly shallow despite all the visual flare to the contrary. I think these mediums are at their best when they're trying to be fun instead of deep.

Who said anything about “beyond”, it just asks different questions. There’s also something called philosophy of science. And philosophy of religion. Also, I can assure you I know what my own major is.

Are you a bit retarded, user? Ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology most certainly fall under philosophy, it's not just all making up guesses for how the world works. The line between philosophy and religion has always been at least a little blurry.

Xenoblade chronicles 2

The key difference would probably be in that religion’s “method” of discovery is generally revelation, barring some scholarship of course...

You guys don't get it, do you? Science is not separate from philosophy. Philosophy is just the historical precursor to science. It doesn't ask different questions. It asks the same questions and uses stupid methods to answer them. Today, it's literally just wank wannabe science for retards and nothing more. It's generally considered to be largely redundant in serious academia.

Fallout New Vegas had /H E G E L I A N D I A L E C T I C S/ which was pretty cool

Attached: Caesar2.png (619x568, 526K)

I feel like Bloodborne gets close to some themes, like the duality of mine/body, also the traditional adversarial relationship between these two in the western tradition. But also plays a little bit with Experience Machine notions, for instance, the player at least faces questions about what sort of reality is valuable, based on if you want the walking up ending or if you want to fight for what you believe even if it’s a dream. Of course, Lovecraft shit sort of negates any question of dream reality since the dreamworld in his works (and Bloodborne) are confirmed (meta)physical locations.

>It’s generally considered to be largely redundant in serious academia.
user, have you heard of a little thing called a PhD? Would you happen to know what it stands for?

Why are you speaking so strongly on something you clearly don't know much about? Science can't answer even simple ethical questions, it can only give you an answer based on your values via a hypothetical imperative. Even talking about the nature of science from outside of science is a part of philosophy.

Attached: David_Hume smaller.jpg (405x341, 61K)

>biggest fucking retards: the thread
other candidates: Nietzche, Marx, Pope Leo X

hurr durr every scientific paradigm has been concieved by philosophers, scientists are just the bitch work horse of the world

Could have cut it off at Pope but you had to get all specific

The Talos Principle no doubt. Or SOMA. They don't give any names or school of thought or whatever, just play and experience the things itself

science is fucking gay and stupid desu.
>muh labcoat

Are you in serious academia? What the fuck is serious academia? Who is the judge of what is “serious”? It’s not a god damn precursor, they were happening simultaneously, often by the SAME PEOPLE. Tell me what branch of science attempts to extrapolate what constitutes a true statement, a true beliefs, good evidence, evidence at all. Don’t you realize when a scientist records an observation they are making a judgment call about the entirety of the methods and tools used? One which is ultimately grounded on either a value judgment, a philosophical principle, or instinct, not in any scientifically discovered fact about reality.

Nier (the first one, not Automata)

You made a good point when you said philosophy is the precursor to science, but you shit the bed after that.

>barring most scholarship, of course
ftfy youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E

>philosophy is dea-

Attached: 1538693580484.png (1716x1710, 2.93M)

true, though they varied in their degree of sodomy and self-idolatry. some, while few, did some good, too

Deus Ex HR has pretty general philosophies about life and society. You can classify them as political if you want, same with Fallout NV.

I'm trying to think of games with life and death philosophies, but nothing comes to mind. I'm sure I played some, but maybe I was too young to remember any. Gladius? One of the Final Fantasies?

Attached: 1551723821414.jpg (1294x478, 69K)

fair 'nuff

>nobel

you should have just had the four on the left instead of revealing your suylevel

I think the image is supposed to reveal how little credit contemporary meme-scientists give philosophy.

pathologic if you are Russian.

they should have gone with both and have technology as well as supernatural elements.

What credit does philosophy deserve? What has it done? You do notice all the quotes of the left are just platitudes, right?

>invents both empirical science and logic as part of his philosophical model
heh... nothing personnel, sophist

Attached: Aristotle.jpg (1683x1728, 789K)

Reasons and Persons disproves your statement.

Do you guys think we will ever have a weird intellectual serious videogame director that btfos peopke when he speaks?

Philosophy hasn’t done anything. Just like science hasn’t. A bunch of philosophers have done a bunch of stuff though, just like scientists have. Have you ever heard of the enlightenment? How about Alexander the Great? Our current conceptions of the world are informed by a rich philosophical tradition. A tradition that encourages everyone to rip it to shreds if they can see an opening. If you’re actually trying to criticize philosophy, even if your attempt is fucking pathetic, you’re doing philosophy.

Baneposting comes to mind.

Yes, KoTor 2 for starters.

Fallout New Vegas.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

There three.

BioShock's commentary on Randian economics and morality was some intredasting subject matter for an otherwise pretty standard FPS game. Narrative completely falls apart in the final act, but still.

The issue is that the game developer part always comes first, as does the film director, the musician, the politician. Everyone thinks they are entitled to “their own philosophy”, but we never get the philosopher who then goes into game design, cinema or politics. I think that might produce what you’re imagining.

Aristotle? Are you an idiot? He was a disaster to scientific progress. But it's not his fault. It's just the flaws of philosophy. We hadn't figured out science yet.

Yeah but it'll have to be a cute girl

Great now zoomers want to discuss hegel on fucking Yea Forums of all places
Fuck off

When was it figured out user, who was the first real scientist?

dark souls 3

>Randian

Attached: D5sUg6aV4AAiLqi.jpg (2048x1536, 400K)

Philosophy helps me fuck the cute art hoe with the skinny legs and the big tits, that likes fancy craft beer and hangs out at hipster bars. For that alone philosophy will always be better than any strict science.

What about Suda?

I like the way you think.

Is Objectivist the right adjective then? Who really gives a shit, it's the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Christ Randy is repulsive.

As the others said, Philosophy is more about logic, critical thinking, and one not mentioned yet is ethics, something that modern society seems to be deprived of.

People think either you have to go full Science or full Religion to have a sense of ethics, where there can be a middle ground and wisdom to be gained from both areas if you don't take everything so damn literally.

Damn, that's a big-ass piece of paper. All of the fortunes I've got were maybe three inches long.

Attached: bruh lookit dis dood.jpg (475x623, 35K)

Undertale

>Solves Philosophy
Time to pack it in, boys.

Attached: 220px-35._Portrait_of_Wittgenstein.jpg (220x306, 19K)

>What has it done?
Cogito ergo sum.

I know Suda is creative but I can’t tell you a philosophical idea he tries to argue for, or a question he likes to bring up.

Only an idiot who would post a picture of Aristotle thinking that alone proves philosophy to be of worth today would think that sort of question is a gotcha.

Its objectivism. You can just call it bullshit though

Well, considering I wasn’t the one who posted Aristotle, can you answer my question? Easy mode: just name the scientific era or revolution you think began “real” science.

Ethics is just the application of logic and critical thinking. It's not a thing in of itself and science can do it just fine. In fact, it does it better.

Yes, philosophy is logic and critical thinking, stuff science also has, but it's missing the rest of the shit that makes science science as opposed to wank. You know? Important stuff like evidence? Reproducibility?

The problem of induction.

Unlike philosophy, science doesn't work that way.

Why is reproducibility and evidence important user? How does one determine their importance?

You cannot derive an ought from an is my man, science doesn't cover ethics. When can science tell me what I should or should not value?

Don't let trick you user he's trying to get you to do Philosophy.

Here’s something philosophy can do, provide a cogent argument! Behold:

1. user claims we had not figured out science yet.
2. Either we have today or we haven’t.
3. If we haven’t, science does not have the authority user is claiming it does.
4. If we have figured out, it was figured out at some point in time, or over the course the of some duration of time.

So name the time or duration or admit real science isn’t a thing.

Do you actually think the question "Why is evidence important?" is a philosophical one? Do you actually think only philosophy is equipped to answer? You are talking about the very things that make philosophy redundant today.

it is quite pathetic how the best that game devs manage to do is drop some fkn genralised summary quote like new vegas (crpgs in general) or deus ex.
cant expect much from your so(y)lent conusmer base. since its the literall same so(y)lents making these games in (((california)))

Soma

nier automata does seem like the right answer
hegel isn't incomprehensible if that's your intended implication

god I hate devouts of mammon
with their 110 IQ and engineering degrees

user just give up, realizing our science isnt all its made out to be is a world shaker and most people cant handle it. Western science and eastern medicine for example come way closer than anyone wants to admit because it breaks the illusion of power and control.

Are you seriously using "philosophy of the gaps" to argue for philosophy? For fuck's sake, I can pretty much rest my case now, can't I? You've failed. Abysmally.

The question is more appropriately stated: What constitutes good evidence? I don’t see how such a question can’t be considered of critical importance to a scientist. I also don’t see how you can answer this question without employing certain platitudes or assumptions about reality, assumptions which themselves may require analysis and criticism. Where science gets its authority is a philosophical question, but one that seems of critical import to anyone who wants to take scientific discoveries and methodology seriously.

>Reproducibility
So you trust that what you have previously observed will occur again?
On what basis do you conclude that the laws of physics, as we understand them, are immutable?
Can you provide evidence to substantiate your claim that these laws you say are constant and unchanging? But of course, your senses have lied to you before, like with hallucinations and the like, so your evidence cannot rely on the sensory perceptions as they are not infallible. Oh, and you also can’t trust your memory, after all how can you be certain you aren’t dreaming right now as we speak? So you can’t use your experiences as evidence. Oh, but isn’t logic itself impossible to prove? Just look up What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. So your evidence can’t be reliant on logic either.
Well? You can’t trust your senses, experiences, or logic, yet you seem to claim quite confidently that physics is immutable with no evidence to prove it.

I’m not saying science is or ain’t horseshit, only that user can’t argue worth shit.

Philosophy 1000?

How is this “god of the gaps”. Answer the fucking question. If you’re claiming “x” is a thing, and at some point it wasn’t a thing, one can infer it appeared at some point or throughout some duration. When.

Every time I'm reminded of what Bill Nye has become I get sad.

>So you trust that what you have previously observed will occur again?

Right off the bat you demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.

It is amazing how many people in this thread are desperately digging for gotcha questions that they purport can only be answered by philosophy in exactly the same way the religious dig for gotcha questions that they claim can only be answered by religion. And they also make the same incorrect assumptions about the scientific process. I think that says it all. Philosophy is wank.

Safety glasses off, motherfucker

I think he got scared by the block of text, look at him.

Fuck off with your "Science only deals in absolutes" bullshit.

You haven’t made an argument though. You just keep saying shit like “and just like that you prove x”. Just like what? Provide reasoning. Demonstrate something other than just saying “wow lol what”.

>You made a claim
>Do you believe the claim you made?
>Can you provide evidence for that claim?

>uh, lol u-um you don’t know what you’re talking about

When did I say that? You claimed at some point in history we hadn’t learned real science yet. Lemme ask you a REALLY fucking easy question: is “real science” (your terminology) being practiced today?

But the premise of precapitalist narrative implies that sexuality is used to reinforce hierarchy. I cannot explain all of Smith's epistetics in this post but it is worth noting that, as I noted in a post earlier this week, "I will not defend Smith. I can only explain his theories." As I said in that post, if you're talking about a historical and social theory that is constructed from a foundational materialist premise, rather than one based largely on ideas from naturalistic evolutionary systems, then there's a great deal that can be learned. We can learn it with Smith's theories of sexual difference and the structure of male-female sexuality by reading Smith. Lyotard uses the term ‘Batailleist theories‘ in relation to male-female sexuality (1–3). And that term carries a useful distinction: it is a historical and social theory.

You are basically asking me to make a philosophical argument to disprove philosophy? Why the fuck should I? That like asking a priest to make a religious argument to disprove god. I'm not playing in your bullshit game.

But earlier, you mentioned that philosophy was superceeded by science. If that is so, then clearly, any philosophical argument presented would easily be refuted by a scientific one. If you refuse to give a philosophical answer, then why don’t you give us a “scientific” answer?

I’m just asking what’s bad about it. It’s not that hard to understand. You keep making claims with nothing to back it up. There’s no reason to take your claims seriously because you aren’t showing a logical course of reasoning to do so.

>Yea Forums trying this hard to be Yea Forums
Stick to vidya and porn threads

Does cynical satire count as philosophy?

Attached: 5910bd32ae653a0c8c46962e.jpg (323x433, 47K)

Have you heard of Diogenes?

>solves philosophy
psh, nothin personel universe

Attached: alanwatts.jpg (1280x720, 85K)

Ethics and philosophy are both bullshit. No single theory or way of thinking fits for everything or everyone. The world is far too complicated and complex for there to be an arbitrary binary right or wrong nor correct way to go about your life. If the best argument you can make for you beliefs is an argument from ignorance, your beliefs are nothing more than that.

Many philosophers and "ethical" people are living in a theoretical world of falsehoods and lies that they refuse to acknowledge even as reality crashes down on them.

Nope. I have a great deal of respect and interest in the concept of philosophy, but don't know a whole lot about it myself.

>The world is far too complicated and complex for there to be an arbitrary binary right or wrong nor correct way to go about your life. If the best argument you can make for you beliefs is an argument from ignorance, your beliefs are nothing more than that.
Look! Look he’s doing philosophy!!!!

My nigger

>If that is so, then clearly, any philosophical argument presented would easily be refuted by a scientific one.

Yes. The scientific argument is demonstration and evidence. Science has it. Philosophy doesn't. A philosophical claim is correct only incidentally.

I don't really care that philosophy can be used to demonstrate philosophy is important. Christianity can be used to demonstrate Christianity is important too. Science doesn't care about demonstrating that philosophy is or isn't important. It cares about describing the world and, to the shock of no one but a philosopher, the world doesn't include philosophy. It's just self-indulgent wank.

it just keeps happening

Diogenes is the most based philosophy boy. Jacked off in public and lived in a barrel.

I'm starting to seriously doubt if you're serious here, user. On the off chance that you are, though, feel free to provide an argument from outside Philosophy as to why it's a redundant subject. And no, stating that Philosophy is redundant because it lacks things like evidence and repeatability is not an argument against the subject, for one: it ignores the fact that Philosophy will openly use scientific study/knowledge in order to back up their arguments (see: any debates within the Philosophy of Mind and, perhaps unsurprisingly, plenty of debates in Metaphysics) and secondly, you would need to back up the claim with some sort of reasoning, in this case why Logic and Critical Thought alone cannot produce anything of value or at least cannot produce anything that couldn't be better done with the use of scientific method.

The lies of a higher order are what makes the mundane truths of reality worth enduring.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach humans how to understand that very thing- that the world is far too complicated and complex for there to be an arbitrary binary right or wrong.

It's intended to be the highest form of logic, with implications so profound that they positively inspire people to seek truth, whatever that truth may be.

That's because the very nature of existence is being pragmatic. Everything else is a waste of time.

>x is the best/a good/the only method for describing the world.
Show proof please.

If your study includes things that actually try to discredit and deconstruct it, it's too broad to be of any actual value or merit.

The dude was the biggest mad lad to ever walk the earth. Pretty much invented the idea of cynicism. Lived in a barrel, masturbated during Plato’s lectures, talked shit to Alexander the Great’s face, was all around a total lad. There’s a bunch of tales about him. One of them has him mocking another man for trying to enter a brothel, only stopping after the man paid him to stop, and then he immediately took that cash and entered the brothel himself.

And if you practice a science that doesn’t attempt to discredit itself, it’s bad science.

>with implications so profound that they positively inspire people to seek truth, whatever that truth may be.
user, that's the purpose of science. You don't need to be a gnostic to wonder why your body functions like it does

Another god of the gaps argument. Christ, you philosophers are so fucking pathetic. You don't get to claim "I don't know the answer yet" means it's philosophy's domain anymore than the religious get to claim it's their domain. Whether science can answer or not doesn't matter. Philosophy can't either way.

hit me with some cool mundane truths of reality that I might continue to endure the lies of higher orders

Wow, talk about being absolutely fucking pathetic.

I pity philosophy majors that much more now that I know I already know more about it than their dumbass does.

if you have a ton of free time like I do check this out:
historyofphilosophy.net/
I've been going through it and it's really cool for just getting at least some idea of this stuff

To any of the philosophy anons in this thread, are there any modern trends in philosophy that would seem particurally relevent/interesting to the layman?

And?

Even determine that something is unanswerable is achievable through philosophy. Questioning ideas of binary is prime philosophical doubt. It’s not claiming an “answer” it’s just acknowledging there is room for pursuit or further study. You’re the only one being absolutist if you think philosophy necessarily usurps any truth is questions.

>with implications so profound that they positively inspire people to seek truth, whatever that truth may be
I've had this idea for a while that I really should get into studying neuroscience so I could find god. This is simply because I've spent so much time wanking with philosophy.

what's the philosophical context? That dreams are another plane of existence?

Basically, self-critique is the mark of intellectual rigor. So no, attempts to discredit oneself are not useless.

>You have invented: Moral Relativism

Yes

Attached: 1492154778347.jpg (800x1129, 881K)

Not a Phil major, but relativism is in an upswing and literally everyone already knows what that is. Good news tho, the Pyrrhonists knocked that idea down a couple pegs. Just tell them that “the statement claiming that there are no absolute truths is in and of itself an absolute truth” totally ruins their philosophy. And then saying that “the statement claiming that there are no absolute truths cannot be a relative truth, otherwise it would have become, from my perspective, an absolute truth” leaves them with nothing.

It's not practical science, it's selfish science. Like, "Why are whores so stupid?" If you're critically intelligent, you could philosophize and explain why they're so stupid with a 95% accuracy, but that's essentially useless for mankind other than simply being knowledge to know and understand. It still has its place though.

Philosophers never do this, though. They just make excuses for their bullshit.

Whatever works, user. Maybe you'll discover something that can inspire others as well.

So far, science works a lot better than philosophy ever did. It's done a lot more in a lot less time in figuring out how the universe works.

This is why philosophy has shrunk from asking question about the universe to pointless wanky esoteric arguments like "What is the nature of truth?". It is literally just religion for pseudo-intellectual atheists.

Edgy anime trash LOL

The ideas you lay out are all also considered valid under Philosophy. If I had to offer one of the most major benefits of the subject it is that it encourages the challenge of dogmatic belief more than any other subject I have encountered.
In addition it's probably one of the best subjects for honing an individual's critical thinking abilities.

>Even determine that something is unanswerable is achievable through philosophy

No, it's not. That's the point. Philosophy only works in the realm of philosophy. It's fucking useless.

Attached: 2jy24u.jpg (636x773, 74K)

The best theory because it pisses professors off to no fucking end.

And? If the only absolute truth is that there is no truth, so be it. Existence is contradictory in the same way. Arguing endlessly for the truth and never finding it is absolutely meaningless.

>reduces everything to one

Attached: Parmenides.jpg (283x370, 20K)

>Bill Nye the Gender Guy

Attached: HAHh.gif (400x298, 1.25M)

Study is still a load of fucking shit.

You'll also notice that a great deal of philosphers were amateur scientists that simply kept asking questions and pondering about shit because they didn't know how to answer them. This was especially prevalent during the height of the age of englightenment when science slowly burned away the shackles of the Catholic church in Europe. Of course, amusingly, it also led to the formation of a lot of pseudo-science cults who wanted answers on things that couldn't be explained by science at the time.

Philosophy is gay occultism is the shit

And yet increasingly often, science has been blurring the lines between objectivity and subjectivity ever since Einstein put out his theory of special relativity, which is only growing skepticism about such objective claims. We went from thinking that position and momentum were absolutes until we discovered the quantum realm. We thought that time was linear and equal to everyone before we discovered time dilation. In this modern era, you could not have picked a worse time to claim that science is an objective measure when it itself has proven in manners beyond philosophy, which I imagine would make you quite happy since you don’t have to deal with it, that the universe and nature and all of its inhabitants exist in different perspectives, which literally alters their reality. And you can’t hand wave that as philosophy, because that was science that showed this to be the case.

So the truth is either a conundrum or a paradox? Seems kinda fishy if you ask me.

>it encourages the challenge of dogmatic belief more than any other subject

Contrary to what you may believe, that doesn't make it meritorious. Challenging the "establishment" is only meaningful if there's a reason to do so. Encouraging doing so just for the sake of it is part of what makes philosophy such a load of self-indulgent wank.

surly no one is this stupid

Attached: 56446455.jpg (315x339, 14K)

Interesting insight

Don't worry, he changed his ways
qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/

Alan Watts is Not a philosopher noob

Welcome to existence.

Knowledge is a true, relevantly justified belief, user. The statement is paradoxically true and false; thus relativists can have no claim of true knowledge.

Not really. Many go on to refute their early works. Wittgenstein did just that post- humously with a book he published critiquing his old line of thinking. Any good philosopher does this because if you're truly actviely thinking, your ideas evolve over time.

then what is he

I get what you're implying with this, but I can't think of there being any realistic situation in which someone is challenging an "establishment" without having an actual reason to do so. We are purposeful creatures and we do almost everything with some sort of intent. To claim that you are doing it solely for the sake of doing it is a misguided claim because there is intent behind it, whether a person is conscious of that intent or not.

>this thread

Attached: 1523121766627.jpg (640x960, 124K)

a man

It only seems pointless to you because you've probably never thought about it in your life.

>needing a degree to know CPR
Holy shit you stupid nigger.

People in this thread are thinking that philosophy is separate from science which cannot be farther from the truth. Philosophy was for the intended purpose of studying the natural world, not humanity itself. Hence why a PhD is still called Doctor of Philosophy. In other words: philosophy is just a primitive version of what we now call science except science is much more practical and realistic and people's perception of philosophy has become more warped as time goes on due to change in language and culture. Though to be fair, people nowadays believe that critical thinking equates to being philosophical because the rough Latin translation for the word is "love of wisdom" or some shit like that. I blame burgerland universities for this.

Also to answer your question, OP, play something like GRIS. It's not philosophic, but it's certainly artistic and beautiful. Plus no faggoty dialogue like in YIIK where it's just a bowl of big boy words.

Attached: 1542609551734.gif (189x189, 273K)

This is just a load of pseudo-science bullshit. Have you got a miracle cancer curing elixir to sell me or something?

If every facet of your motivation in life was treated with a concrete materialist outlook you’d be a robot. At a certain level every human utilizes some arbitrary bs to get themselves through the day,

your mom is a man

thanks

based

kek

Soma does a pretty good job of this.

>The quantum realm is bullshit
>Superposition is bullshit
>Time dilation is bullshit
>It’s pseudoscience
Conglaturations, I have successfully made you deny science and I can now appropriately begin calling you an ignorant faggot.

ignorant faggot

No, it's pointless because philosophy can't answer. It is not equipped to accurately describe the universe so they stick to the abstract. When they makes claims about the universe they can be demonstrated to be bullshit with little trouble but when they make claims about the abstract it's a little difficult to call them out on it. Philosophy has shriveled up and hides in a dark hole in a pathetic attempt to maintain it's pointless existence.

I do, but I'm not sharing it with you because I'd rather watch you slowly die of cancer.

Man, you are really butthurt about philosophy for some reason. I think was pretty much on point, except it's not that you haven't thought about it- it's that you clearly don't understand it.

>that the universe and nature and all of its inhabitants exist in different perspectives, which literally alters their reality

This is utter bullshit. Reality does not alter according to perspective. Reality is reality. Your perspective of it is limited but that has no bearing on reality itself.

It feels like you're taking more issue with folks congratulating themselves for challenging the establishment rather than the act of challenging.

Otherwise, you just have a schema to dismiss criticism or questioning of anything as being 'self-indulgent wankery,' which is absurdly reductive.

What about that dead cat meme?

Dreamweb, Sanitarium

Philosophy doesn't really claim to have answers about the universe, it simply has questions. And if you have any brain at all you've problem asked yourself shit like "what is thing in itself? Why is there something? Why not nothing instead?". That's it.

>Has there ever been a game that tried to be philosophical without being totally incomprehensible trash that just uses big words to seem impressive?
Could say the same about philosophers.

...

If philosophy actively encourages challenging establishment then it's grooming people to challenge simply for challenge's sake. Science doesn't encourage people to challenge establishment. It encourages people to describe the world accurately and if that inherently results in a challenge to establishment then so be it but nobody in science actively seeks to challenge.

Abstract thought can lead to practical breakthroughs in thought, can it not? For example, Psychology and Cognitive Science find their groundings in the works of Philosophers like Hume and Dennet respectively. Perhaps you view those subjects as pseudoscience, however, and therefor not of merit? Then look no further than Mathematics - the subject itself is composed (almost?) entirely of abstract reasoning and yet it has had major impacts on subjects like Physics.

We used to say that if we dropped something, it would necessarily fall to the ground, but then we went to space. All perceptions can be tainted; the external object being observed could change depending on the circumstances, the observer, and the setting. Someone who lives deep in intergalactic space has a different reality when it comes to gravity than someone living on a planet. So which is true? Does the dropped object fall or not? The truth value of this proposition is relative depending on the perspective, ergo reality is different.

Science is literally just applied philosophy.

I've never claimed philosophy was not an important stepping stone. I said TODAY, it's redundant. It's a clumsy, inaccurate tool that is no longer needed. It's bared it's fruit already and that fruit was science.

Unironically an insane retard.
Subahibi was fine tho.

You just gave an example of why I'm right. The fact that we used believed "Everything that goes up must come down" didn't make that actual reality. It just made us wrong.

Since I know you’re just gonna call it pseudoscience again, allow me to rephrase my point; let’s say I were to ask you the following question: “If I let go of this pencil, will it fall down,” how would you answer? Someone who lives on a planet will answer yes. Someone who lives in intergalactic space would answer no. And both answers are equally valid. But the answer to the question can not be both yes and no; that would be contradictory. The only possible way to answer the question would be to clarify the circumstances, which necessarily indicates that reality differs between perspectives. That is the only way to resolve this paradox.

How do I get into Philosophy?

Oof, a minute too slow.

Xenogears also. Plenty have criticized the Nietzschean themes but I liked the use of Jung and Freud

break it down, Sophia = wisdom, phileo = social kinship. hm it seems we're stuck with it

My argument references Cognitive Science as a field that's emerged from Philosophy, and that is a relatively recent phenomena and a lot of Philosophical thought heavily influences studies into A.I. at the moment. Surely by that alone it seems you may be jumping the gun as to whether or not the subject has outlived its relevancy?

Read about it. I imagine is a pretty good place to start. Maybe take a class at your local community college.

>The only possible way to answer the question would be to clarify the circumstances, which necessarily indicates that reality differs between perspectives.

No. The perspective is irrelevant. What made the pencil not fall down in intergalactic space is not the lack of perception of gravity, it was the lack of actual gravity.

And for the record, we use the same formula to calculate whether or not the pencil will fall down on earth as we do in space. The answer IS actually the same for both.

Read some sort of general textbook, and then dive deeper into subjects that are particularly interesting to you.

I'm so glad I don't give a shit about Philosophy. When you consider the implications from a fucking scene from starwars to be a groundbreaking revelation in your field you know it's a joke.

Attached: 8ec94c7353b46587d8943fb3824564b5.jpg (1125x1435, 163K)

>not knowing Diogenes

Attached: 1453120209483.jpg (500x453, 85K)

I don't find the mere fact that philosophers still exist and prey on gaps in knowledge a compelling reason in of itself to believe they are still needed. Their worth is judged by their achievements and their achievements are pretty much non-existent these days.

WHO BARRELBOY HERE

>reality does not alter according to perspective
Reality, that is, life, the laws of physics, everything you know, is a construct of your perspective. A mere chemical reaction can change reality. Your memories shape reality, the schooling you went through to learn about the universe.

What if tomorrow scientists discovered an entirely new element? What if they discovered something that contradicted everything you thought you knew about the universe, about reality, even your ideas of reality? Does your concept, the concept of reality you've come to understanding after 20 or 30 something odd years up until that exact moment exist independently of what scientists discovered in that hypothetical situation? Or was it simply an old perspective? What was it?

Read Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. He wrote the thing to be understandable by college age teens, plus you are promised “an indubitable foundation for all epistemic matters”. Spoiler alert: He fucks up mega hard, total crash and burn. Just look up the Cartesian Circle

If the answer is the same, then was is it? Is it yes or no?

no

read Stirner for the memes, you'll never be the same again

Name ten good (living) philosophers.

Nightmare mode: No partisan hacks.

Attached: machine.png (716x480, 339K)

>If the answer is the same, then was is it? Is it yes or no?

Is the answer to 2 + 2 yes or no?

Me x10

Planescape: Torment

You were the one who claimed the answer was the same. Don’t pull this bullshit on me. Either admit you were wrong or give an answer. Don’t dodge the question.

2+2 is exactly why philosophy is useful. An abstraction we can use to simplify an incomprehensibly complex reality.

You didn't understand what I'm getting at. You asked the wrong question because you are ignorant. Science can tell you you asked the wrong question because you are ignorant. Philosophy cannot because philosophy is absolutely fucking useless.

This entire line of thought is fucking retarded. People thought the Earth was flat for centuries, that doesn't mean the Earth was actually flat though.

Why is 'for challenge's sake' a bad thing in your mind?
If it is possible to find flaws an object or institution should it not be our duty to point them out so it could be improved?

And it seems like you're arguing idealized concepts here rather than how they're actually applied.
I agree that 'true science' is about describing the world as it is, but if you dip a finger in the pool of peer-review, you'll put out a finger caked in false positives and exaggerated results, sometimes used to perpetuate an agenda, sometimes just the result of sheer laziness.
The same goes with philosophy. It's used to describe the study — and resultant questioning — of existence, society, culture: all information that cannot be tested empirically. But, I will acquiesce to your view that it is often used as a societal and mental participation trophy. Something for people to hoist and say 'I don't believe in -insert a cultural phenomena-!' I'm so smart!'
But given the fact I'm acquiescing to your pedestalized abstraction of science, 'twould be nice if you didn't dismiss the entirety of philosophy out of hand.

You are an actual brainlet

drugs

It seems rather unfair to dismiss my examples as Philosophy 'preying' on gaps in our knowledge. If Philosophical thought and study has furthered the study of certain emerging areas of study then why should that not be considered an achievement of the subject? Is the argument that these subjects would still have formed without any of the groundwork laid out by Philosophers? It's certainly possible, I suppose, but it's not something you can reasonably prove and the subjects would likely be very different than they are in their current states without the contributions of Philosophy.
Additionally, I doubt you'd be able to distinguish what makes the contributions that modern Philosophy is making to these fields different enough from the contributions Philosophy has historically made to other subjects that you'd be able to justify the notion that the latter can be counted among the subject's achievements whilst the former cannot.

>It seems rather unfair to dismiss my examples as Philosophy 'preying' on gaps in our knowledge.

Well, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt but that's what it is. If philosophers actually contributed meaningful knowledge about the world they'd be helpful but they don't so they aren't.

This user: x10

You stupid fucking faggot; if the question is wrong then how can you possibly claim that the answers are the same? The only possible way to do that would be to claim to have knowledge of the answer. If you do not know the answer, then my assertion stands as valid. The only way to disprove me is to demonstrate that the answers are indeed the same regardless of the circumstances, which necessitates that you give me an answer as evidence, and at no point is dodging the question refuting me. If you cannot do this, then all you’ve done is grandstand about and proved fuck all.

Ebin. Good shitposting with you, user.

Once again, Yea Forums can only discuss things other than video games.

Exactly. To everyone on earth it was reality. At the time it may as well have been independent on the observer. An immutable truth. It is, centuries later, considered a mere perspective, not independent of the observer. A simple falsehood. Let's say tomorrow we somehow found out we are in fact wrong about the earth, and it turns out it's neither flat or round, but something else entirely. Does a round earth still exist independently or not? Or is it just an old perspective.

The idea of this thought experiment is that as our ideas change, we create an entirely new universe. In fact this thought experiment is nothing new.

Enough of these bullshit attempts at gotcha questions. The thread is full of them and they all fail abysmally. You don't get it, do you? Both science and philosophy claim to accurately describe the world. Science does it so much better than philosophy it's not even close to being a competition. Philosophy is a joke. It's on the same level as fucking gender studies. Useless wank for useless people.

Wittgenstein was a hack and Subahibi was mostly trash. It only had two good characters, Mamiya and Kimika. The philosophical themes it attempts to cover have nothing to do with the actual narrative for 99% of the story. At least Invention was a good chapter.

>Does a round earth still exist independently or not? Or is it just an old perspective.
Obviously the latter.

>The idea of this thought experiment is that as our ideas change, we create an entirely new universe.
Why do you believe that you create a new universe every time someones corrects you about being wrong about something?

> Pretty much invented the idea of cynicism.
He didn't though. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy). You can read up on its history there, he is probably the most famous cynic though.

Hey guys.

Attached: Philipp_Mainlaender.png (400x570, 108K)

What is all this modern cuck/incel talk if not undiluted Freud

Nigger, the reason the thread is full of “gotcha” questions is because philosophy questions the nature of reality and knowledge. Where did it come from? What are they? Apparently you haven’t been paying even a single fucking bit of attention, otherwise you’d’ve realized by know that all these questions you refuse to answer are literally the very questions that science cannot answer and philosophy was DESIGNED to combat. I get that philosophy has died out in the modern era, which I largely attribute to a growing agnosticism in the global population, but if you think that all philosophy is boils down to just armchair doctorates, then you’ve blinded yourself to a matter that is very much crucial to the way we understand the universe. You can’t answer these questions with science. There is no formula to determine what ideas are, no calculus to elucidate the origin of reality. Philosophy drives us to question the way we perceive things. Without it, we would’ve remained content to never advance anything. Why would’ve we have? We assumed we knew all there was to know. It was only by questioning that we discovered greater knowledge, and philosophy continues to abate this laziness even today. There are still things we don’t know, and it is philosophy, not science, that alerts us to these matters.

When are we going to get a stunning a brave game that allows you to perform abortions up to 6 months after birth? They're not people, after all.

Attached: singer.jpg (240x320, 52K)

My uncle worked with bill nye ive met him on more then one occasion. That was over a decade ago. So weird to see what he does now. I have his autograph.

Human beings are valuable because of the bonds they form with others and their ability to recognize themselves and their own existence. It's not our DNA that gives us value. There's nothing wrong with killing extremely young infants as long as no one cares about the ones being killed.

>philosophy preys on ignorance

Yes. We've established philosophy is a glorified religion for pseudo-intellectuals that relies on the god of the gaps to remain relevant already. That's a big reason as to why it sucks so much.

Now we're getting somewhere. See you guys say phlosophy is bullshit but you're actively engaging in it. So, let's think about it for a second. How do any of us, aside from simply experiencing life come to understand reality? We learn about it. We read about it. user your ideas of reality, your very concept of the nature of existence come from your education, the books you read, the equations you've come to understand. Aside from experiential evidence such as knowing a stove is hot because you touched it as a child, or that the sun is not present at night, you derive your knowledge of the universe almost entirely from the knowledge passed down some readings, teachers, parents, scientists, etc.

tl;dr the universe is essentially shaped by the ideas passed down to you. Every new piece of data acquired that contradicts the old ideas shaping reality fundamentality changes it. It's never the same again.

>not humanity itself

Have you ever read a single work by Nietzsche?
Explain how any science can come even remotely close to try and understand the true nature of man. We need both to exist, they answer very different questions in regards to all things living. There will always be things unknown that science cannot explain, it's dangerous to always take an academic/institutionalized approach in dealing with human minds and the meaning of life.

Attached: 1548623960694.png (540x549, 339K)

I'd posit that the potential for an infant (or, indeed, even the most primitive form of embryo) to eventually be able to recognize their own existence and form bonds with others is also something we value. We make arguments about the lives of future persons all the time when arguing about something like climate change, do we not? (as an aside, let's avoid devolving the conversation into a debate about Climate Change, whether it's real or not is entirely irrelevant to the argument here.)

The only thing that matters is the propagation of your kind and the decimation of all others. This is why Islam will inherit the world, and is indeed in the process of doing so.

Attached: 1527924576523.jpg (960x600, 69K)

What you’re doing is taking a broad definition of ‘philosophy’, misattributing its entire purpose to ‘describing the physical world’ and getting pissy because science does indeed describes the physical universe around us with much more ease.

It’s like picking up a sponge, using it to whack nails, and whining about ‘ITS NOT AS GOOD AS A HAMMER’

ironically you’re acting just like a freshman who just finished his Intro to Western Philosophy, kek

How do you go from
>THE WIND IS PUSHING MEEEEEEE
to questioning the spectrums of human morality and existential dread?
the fuck, Itsuno?

Attached: 7E7742ED-E2FB-4183-86E9-18A7F8E87F3B.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

Your interpretation of reality != reality. Someone could die from being exposed to lethal amounts of radiation without having any idea of what radiation even is.

>the universe is essentially shaped by the ideas passed down to you

No. Only a philosopher could say something so stupid. Ideas are "shaped" by the universe. The universe does not give a fuck about whatever dumb shit a human incorrectly believes to be true.

>Islam
You mean Judaism

Imagine being so dense as to interpret “asking questions science can’t answer” as “preying on the ignorant”. Fuck off. I’m growing tired of repeating myself only for you to dismiss it out of hand not through any sort of proof, but just because “pseudoscience lol”. Any argument you could possibly give to refute me falls victim to either circular reasoning or infinite regress. That’s why you refuse to refute me. It’s because it’s literally impossible for you to prove me wrong, yet you take that to mean that the questions being asked are ultimately meaningless. Philosophy endorses skepticism; something you apparently cannot comprehend. You’re far too dogmatic for any further discussion to yield any sort of benefit for either of us. Take from that what you will, for I do not care.

>It's not our DNA that gives us value.

Then why are most blacks so worthless?

Attached: 1537968129141.jpg (252x244, 10K)

>final boss
>oh cool its the tutorial guy
>final boss new game +
>its fucking you
Dragon's Dogma's story goes from 1 to 1 million.

>Explain how any science can come even remotely close to try and understand the true nature of man.

This is so stupid. Only philosophy can understand "true" nature? Everything else is "false" nature? This shit really is a goddamn religion.

Where did you come up with that idea?

>lmao just kys
was he based?

Attached: albert-camus.jpg (801x507, 95K)

Climate change is real, permanent climate change caused by man's actions is not

The potential argument sounds pretty valid and I don't mind it too much but one thing about it I do take issue with is when the potential starts to matter. The classic hypothetical that's proposed is if you were in a burning building and you had a choice between saving a 6 month old infant or 50 pitri dishes with zygotes that will become humans in time, which would you pick? To take it farther, is the potential to become a human something that should be treasured in all contexts? Should the goal of humans be to reproduce as often as possible to maximize the amount of potential humans?

It really depends on whether or not you're a materialist.

There is only the "physical" universe. If philosophy doesn't describe that then it describes something which doesn't even exist so who cares about what it has to say?

And protip, philosophers. Next time you want to claim philosophy doesn't deal with the physical universe don't posit it can answer questions about the physical universe.

His philosophy was actually "lmao just live", not sure how you managed to fuck that up.

According to science I should be raping people 24/7 to ensure widespread distribution of my genes.
Philosophy tells me that people might not like that and it ultimately is not that big a deal in modern society since monogamy is so prevalent.

There are things to learn from both, you fedora tipping retard.

With a shovel a man can accomplish in an afternoon what would take erosion a thousand years.

>Explain how any science can come even remotely close to try and understand the true nature of man

Man's true nature is that of a slave. I know this because I can lace your food with heroin and you'll obey the person who provides it to you, without question. In a more esoteric sense (you faggot philosophers are fond of this) man is still a slave even without foul play; a slave to his feelings of obligation, a slave to his natural urges, a slave to forces and institutions that existed long before he is. People exist solely to be made conscripts in an army of the deranged. These things are esoteric, but me lacing your food with heroin and making you suck my dick for more is not.

Attached: 1538590767283.gif (400x280, 1.27M)

ITT: Skeptics in this thread pray to the holy altar of reddit "Science" while not realizing science without philosophy is just information. You use philosophy to integrate information with reality and find the best way to live. Reminder modern "science" is gender studies and misguided psychology (because psychology forgets that ideas are what motivate people). Science is good, introspection and observing reality are important (and are apart of philosophy) but it doesn't derive an ought from an is.

You can die from radiation, but if you were never taught about it, the concept never existed in books, or was passed down, then it may as well have not existed. For all anyone knows he was killed by demons, if we had never discovered it. Maybe he got sick due to some plague that God cast on him for not praying enough.

Also something I neglected to mention: The reason the climate change thing is a false equivalency is that (assuming climate change is real and is dooming us blablabla) it will cause suffering to future humans. Killing young infants does not, it simply guarantees there's no potential for joy, which is not a moral wrong in and of itself. See attached image.

Attached: AN equation.png (557x126, 13K)

You literally have autism

Soil is not the climate

>According to science I should be raping people 24/7 to ensure widespread distribution of my genes.
Science never makes the claim why you /should/ do anything you fucking moron.

I am just lurking and I was expecting this to be pointed out sooner

>Reminder modern "science" is gender studies and misguided psychology (because psychology forgets that ideas are what motivate people).
You're post would have been better without this faggotry.

>According to science I should be raping people 24/7 to ensure widespread distribution of my genes.

Science has never claimed this. On the contrary, science explains why we DON'T do this. Philosophy doesn't provide an answer. Philosophy muses about "ethics" and "morals" without saying anything meaningful about them. Science does say meaningful things about "ethics" and "morals". Namely, how they came to be and why.

>you're
goddamit nvm kms.

Lace my food with heroin and I'll discover the fact that I'm probably drugged because it has a very fucking profound effect on me. What the fuck sort of logic is that? Do you seriously not know what's going with you after you ingest certain things? Or do you just say "oh well, this food is making me bleed from my asshole. Huh, wonder why that is. Oh well".

Not him but it's an analogy you dunce, the point is that human beings can have a ton of impact on their environment. The ozone layer is a good example. Downplaying humanity's impact on the environment is not humility, it's ignorance.

>Reminder modern "science" is gender studies and misguided psychology (because psychology forgets that ideas are what motivate people).

No. Even the arts faculties kicked out that bullshit. None of them follow the scientific method. They aren't doing science.

>Lace my food with heroin and I'll discover the fact that I'm probably drugged because it has a very fucking profound effect on me

Doesn't matter. You are irreversibly hooked on heroin. You might kill me, but you will remain a slave to your addiction; drugs only modern science can create. You forget opium destroyed thousands of years of history in Asia on its own.

Oh, language, culture, society, and anything regarding the validity of knowledge itself doesn’t exist?
Thanks for clearing that up, man, I was really torn up about it.

For someone who touts science so much you seem to have a poor understanding of how addiction works. I realize that's just an example though.

You're looking at philosophy through too narrow a lens. The value judgments you're assigning in your post are themselves a rudimentary form of philosophy. Science is a scalpel and philosophy the surgeon's hand.

based psychopathic cunny poster

Heroin doesn't make you hooked after just one dose. Not even cocaine is that addictive. To my knowledge no drug on earth is. If you have an addictive personality, maybe. But then that type of person is at risk from just about anything.

Sure thing retard

Attached: 1529828022535.jpg (1024x717, 84K)

every game has a message, whether it's revealed through text, interaction, level design, etc, though most of the time the message boils down to "doing x is fun," "turning big things into little things allows you to gain power over them and is thus pleasurable," "kill or be killed," "leverage any advantage you have, no matter how small" or something of the sort.
narratively these are your best bets

I was stating the original inception of philosophy. I never said philosophy of every time period is bad or the idea that old school is bad either. It's obviously important to not only understanding out past but also understanding basic concepts. It's just that people nowadays think that philosophy has nothing to do with science when that's farther from the truth. Nietzsche is kino though.

If only the greatest minds in history had been afforded the opportunity to ponder the most ardent question ever posed to humanity: Visas or Handmaiden?

>language, culture, society, and anything regarding the validity of knowledge

That's sociology, not philosophy. It's science. Philosophy is as useless there as it is in laws of motion.

>missing the point

I love how this entire climate change denial has made it so easy to spot Americans. Literally the only group of people who believe en masse that climate change is fake, the Earth is flat, space isn't real, moonlanding was a hoax, etc.
How can a 'developed' country be so stupid?

I think it's a difficult one to answer satisfactorily, although I would be inclined to argue that it would not be obviously the worst of the two outcomes to save the 50 pitri dishes (even if it is perhaps unintuitive at first glance). As for your larger point about at what point we should 'draw the line' so to speak with potential life, perhaps the answer really is 'never' and that we as human beings will have to accept we're woefully unequipped to practically achieve such a thing. I can understand the apprehension at such an answer but I would question the implications that, if potential life did not matter, we could theoretically create a disease that would cause all life on this planet to go completely sterile in X generations and come to the conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so.
Ah, you're right. A stupid thing for me to look over, really.

>>How can a 'developed' country be so stupid?
The midwest.

Philosophy explains why it's wrong using a number of different forms of reason. Be it because it causes suffering and logically you wouldn't want suffering to be inflicted upon you so why would you inflict it upon others. Or net gain in overall happiness VS suffering. These are things that philosophers considered when making laws that essentially prevented us from going around and raping half the population. These conclusions weren't made in a fucking lab.

nier automata

The end of that graph is ~1855, retard, not the present day. The GISP2 and general scientific "present" is 1950, minus 95 years. So great job, you've proved that there was a minimal effect from climate change 150 years ago.

Attached: 1540524079641.gif (390x373, 2.54M)

Frankly I dont even think it counts. All the game does is throw themes and make a question that it never actually bothers giving a meaningful point about it

Now paint the mental image that the infants feel pain, and will be burned alive, while the zygotes do not feel pain. You're saying it would be a reasonable choice to save more 'humans', instead of looking at who would suffer more.
That's a pretty scary mindset to be honest user.

nier automata

>provide evidence the world isnt melting
>other guy starts sperging about america, using every meme he can

Man-made climate change isnt real, cope with it

Attached: 1553900080586.png (1891x4901, 2.2M)

Christ, you're in-fucking-corrigible.
Early sociology was based on philosophy and the work of philosophers, but I suppose you'll pull something out of your anus regarding how it doesn't count because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.
It's been real, user.
Also, protip, develop the decency to pretend that anything could shift the Sisyphean goddamned boulders your malformed opinions are.

Attached: (you).gif (480x270, 1019K)

>These are things that philosophers considered when making laws that essentially prevented us from going around and raping half the population.

This is just wrong. Philosophers didn't invent the laws about not raping people. We have an innate desire to protect females that is explained by nature and that is why we have laws about rape. What philosophy gave us is bullshit like "Grass on the field, okay to play." What science gave us is "The human mind has not fully matured until, in general, 18 years of age and so people younger than that are physically incapable of making sensible decisions."

tldr; philosophers are pedos

>create a time machine and bring back famous philosophers to our time
>have them settle the arguments over best girls

Well, if we're arguing from a position of Utilitarianism, yes. But frankly Utilitarianism, in any form I've seen it presented, almost always leads to some pretty terrifying results when you examine edge-cases. The whole thing that kicked off this conversation was Singer's conclusions about infanticide, after-all.

>Early sociology was based on philosophy and the work of philosophers, but I suppose you'll pull something out of your anus regarding how it doesn't count because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

On the contrary, I have consistently maintained in this thread that philosophy was an important historical stepping stone towards developing science which has since made philosophy utterly redundant.

You're the only one sperging user. Like I said, it's obvious you're America, because no other nation is so collectively retarded. Climate change is real whether you like it or not user.

Cry about America from your continent of uneducated rat feces-eating islamic rape victims

Attached: 1538257753847.gif (590x424, 87K)

That's like saying the trunk of a tree isn't important because it doesn't bear fruit directly.

No, it's nothing like that. Philosophy did bear fruit. That fruit was science. Now it bears nothing.

If we're going purely by utilitarianism, sheer numbers doesn't always create a net good. If I were to father 20 children right now, they would most certainly die under my care as I lack the income to provide for them. If the zygotes all lacked parents and the baby had at least one, then that's a net gain, no?

But given that philosophy includes studying the validity of knowledge and reasoning, would it not serve as an effective lubricant for the gears of science?

Philosophy is the farmer deciding whether to make jam out of the fruit or use it as filling in a pie.

I suppose on those grounds you'd be right. I'd say uncertainty is probably one of the big issues when considering potential please/pain.

>The idea that rape evolved under some circumstances as a genetically advantageous behavioral adaptation was popularized by biologistRandy ThornhillandanthropologistCraig T. Palmerin their bookA Natural History of Rape(2000)
When you're right, you're right. Scientists never once posited that rape was advantageous.

Why do europeans think about us so much? I cant go one thread without them going
>Oh Americans why do you do thing.

Holy shit nigger do you even Hammurabi's code? The first lawmaker in history made it punishable by death to rape women. Hammurabi was not a sscientist my dude, not by a long shot. Know your history before making up bullshit. Pretty sure they thought you about Hammurabi's Code in school

I enjoy laughing at retards

What exactly is your point? Science did not invent rape. Science does not advocate rape. Science explains why it occurs and it also explain why most of the time it does not occur. It's not surprising that philosophy advocates make the same stupid claims of the "immorality of science" that the religious do. You guys are like peas in a pod.

Attached: 435032-sid-meier-s-alpha-centauri-windows-front-cover.jpg (800x1035, 154K)

this is the biggest dumpster fire of a thread i've seen this year

Science doesn't really do much in the realm of values.

lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_GAY_SCIENCE_FIFTH_BOOK_.aspx?S=344
>One sees that science also rests on a faith: there is no science at all "without premises". The question whether truth is necessary, must not merely be affirmed beforehand, but must be affirmed to such an extent that the principle, belief, or conviction finds expression, that "there is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value". This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will not to allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could also be interpreted in this fashion, provided one included under the generalization "I will not deceive" the special case "I will not deceive myself". But why not deceive?

Witcher 3 and kotor 2

>Witcher 3

>In philosophy
>Professor asks me about the concept of evil
>Put on the spot, start panicking but remember a certain quote from Witcher 3
>"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degreee is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all"
>Professor looks stunned, class gives me a round of applause

Anyone else had video games help them in real life?

This is what brainlets think (if you could call that "thinking").

>on this tinder date with this 9/10
>chad walks up to me and started pushing me around
>saying 'hey babe quit the zero and get with the hero'
> 'get yourself a real man'
> straighten my glasses
> clear my throat
>'excuse me, I believe that a man chooses, a slave obeys'
>a waiter drops his platter
>the dikes break and the yangtze river floods the thots pants
>chad is humiliated
>gets on his knees and sucks me off right there
>get a $20 applebees giftcard

Ironic to use a hegel picture for this comment.

95% of Philosophy post 1850 IS totally incomprehensible trash that just uses big words to seem impressive

That's the biggest problem

brainlet

mgs2

>there are people in this thread who unironically think philosophy and philosophes have contributed nothing to humanity and civilization and that it is a complete waste of time to study or practice it

Yes I guess thinking and reading about smart individuals who thought a lot is quite useless and definitely will bring nothing of value to an individual or a civilization

that’s basic retardation, the kind you should expect by this point.
what really gets my goat is people who think that philosophy has been ‘solved’.
because they read baby’s intro to moral relativism, they dont need to worry their pretty little heads over ethics anymore

>Solves Philosophy
you need to read later witty. investigations is better than tlp