I don't "get" philosophy. Is stuff like Kant and Nietzsche supposed to make sense...

Well yeah that's philosophy in a nut shell

lurk moar

You can't draw morals from science, you need philosophy for that.

I've read some Nietzsche, Plato, and Kant. Plato was by far the most accessible, it actually made a little bit of sense. Nietzsche and Kant just made no sense at all, especially Kant.

he's a kant afterall

lole

Philosophy is a tool used to understand things. That it's basis is emotional rather than evidence and fact based doesn't separate it from science as a tool of understanding, rather it just makes it a worse tool by virtue of it's inferior methods. It used to be all the human race had, but now we have better, so it no longer has a purpose.

The same can be said of Formal Debate. Winning a debate doesn't mean your conclusion is correct or factual, just that you argued more to the rules, or more convincingly. You aren't necessarily right, you just won more points.

I mean technically just thinking about it and trying to come to a conclusion is philosophy.

Actually you can indeed draw morals from science. You can draw morals from anytbing, since morality is entirely relative. You don't need philosophy for that any more than you need formal debate for anything practical.

Now, I would say that a more evidence based approach to morality is the application of Logic, rather than philosophy. That doesn't mean your conclusions will be more right though, since as I said morality is relative, but it does mean your conclusions will be "less wrong", since they won't be so rooted in highly fallible pure emotion and speculation.

That, at least, is demonstrable, since logic in itself is axiomatic.

Is my philosophy just that I'm retarded?

>morality is entirely relative

Not "entirely" it has subjective/objective elements

Honestly,y you probably need some supplement material from another teacher to understand the core ideas, look up any of these philosophers + wisecrack (or crashcourse) on youtube. This stuff used to be over my head and when I added that content and went back to it, was able to grasp them. Keep trying bud, if other people can figure it out, you're capable too.

Not that guy but I agree with him because I *read* some of Kants work and then *discussed* it with my friends.

Philosophy is great for two or more like minded people to talk and whittle an idea down to it's basic truth. Bonus if the people also know logic.

There were times we discussed "a thing" to it's completion, and there was nothing more to be said. I miss those days. I think I'll call up my best bud in the whole world who thinks like me, but I only talk to once or twice a year even though we live in the same city.

Attached: 61161410_10216246877857431_6425475193136742400_n.jpg (540x398, 18K)

You can inject objective elements into your idea of what's humorous, but the concept itself still remains entirely relative, and any given person can have an equally justifiable sense of it, while simultaneously being no more right than you, even if your two views of it are completely at odds. Morality is no different.

I'd say, start at the basics and then learn more advanced stuff later on. Check out Crashcourse's series on Philosophy on YT if you're interested, they break it down pretty well so it's easily understood for just about anyone getting into it.

Sorry I should have said that you can't draw morals from science that actually worked, since science doenst contemplate thing such as: collective responsibility,individual freedom, social etiquette, a code of law etc. A science based system of morality can lead you you justify kids being put into hormones by their pansexual parents, a science based moral system can lead you into forcing race-mixinf if that makes the human race genetically better, a science based moral system can lead you to destroy a national history and culture because after all, those are just useless things.

Every philosopher who ever lived was full of shit except for based Diogenes

That's all just a matter of social acceptability though, which itself is relative to the times and the values of the society in question as a whole.

Philosophy is still not the best tool for that, either way. I would say logic is, since it is more fact based and thus yields more reliable and realistic conclusions. Whether those conclusions end up being popular, and thus considered acceptable, is a different matter entirely, and yet still has no use for philosophy.

When you say philosophy you're speaking in disgustingly broad terms, there are specific schools of philosophy to question whatever subject in existence, existence being one itself, you can't discover the atom by using solely logic, you can't find a reason not to shot yourself based just in logic, you can't really make a moral system base in logic because then, empiricism is based uppon the way you view things and that may very well be wrong or differ from others, logic, science and philosophy are all tools to reach the truth and they all must be used to reach a higher goal, the Romans couldn't had build the coliseum had they only use Stone and not wood because stone is stronger than wood, all the tools must be use when they are required, to say "oh philosophy is juts inferior" is in fact being a simpleton.

Actually, you could draw a method of morality from science
>collective responsibility,individual freedom, social etiquette
All rooted in our biology as a method of self preservation. Granted, these are all also emotional and philosophy but I'd like to point out that when you say "science" you're actually saying "the data and ideas on how the world works according to humanity" so you were always going to get this crossover.

As for everything else you said, you've missed a huge point; human advancement is always at its greatest under one of the two following circumstances - when there is the most need for it (ww2 is a great example of this in material science) and when there is the most freedom for it (I. E. People being forced into certain actions. Forcing people to discard history, force race mixing, and such inhibits advancement as you discard other ideas and purge them. Which would be the greater moral imperative? Forcing genetic diversity or allowing for the diversity of ideas? That is why a science based system of morality could work, this is not to say it would be simple. You'd still have to work through it entirely to get a 'right' answer.

What is the biological purpose of eating with a fork? There are natural imperatives and then human imperatives, you play video games and watch movies not because of a biological imperative, different cultures and nations develop different human imperatives, like Muslims can have 4 wives while christians, this both human imperatives differ and intend to Sufice different human imperatives not biological, why wear a hat that's blue and not red? Where is the biological imperative in that choose, why praise one god and not the other, where is a biological imperative in both?

A science based moral syatem would basically be naturalistic utilitarianism on steroids

You're just stupid.
Go back to tapping.

To answer your question OP
In order to understand philosophy start with no philosopher but with yourself, ask yourself simple question like, "why is murder wrong?" And then go into "when is murder not wrong" and then you'll start thinking like a philosopher, after you get a foot into philosophy your readings will become more and more pleasant and enlightening, also read poetry cuz thats what manly men do and it helps to form your own Character by disagreeing a and agreeing with characters of the piece.

stupidity is just like death: it only sucks for the other people