Is philosophy too abstract to be applicable or even valued anymore?
Is philosophy too abstract to be applicable or even valued anymore?
Josiah Clark
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.com
qz.com
twitter.com
Jaxson Cook
Philosophy is for LSD and weed only, and we keep our secrets if you know what i mean
Isaiah Watson
I know who you are, cunt. Cunt cunt cunt. Cunt.
Hudson Thomas
Treeplanting is the most avluable feild because without trees none of this would have evolved in the first place
Michael Miller
there were animals before trees i think
Hunter Ortiz
Who the flinging shit are you
Ryan Thompson
yea, it doesn't help with soul searching either
you end up trapped by your own thoughts
Julian Stewart
Way way way before trees. The first creatures to walk on land did so before trees.
Luke Ross
Basic philosophy seems beyond huge swathes of the population so no
Andrew Bailey
Yes, yes it is.
Kierk
John Walker
I guess it helps people find meaning in life. Realistically it's not an objective thing and we live in a universe with no set rules for humans.
Hudson Anderson
Don't all humans already philosophize on a really fundamental level? Why don't they go further? Why don't they question their self awareness?
Ryan Walker
>Why don't they question their self awareness?
Because it's dangerous.
Gavin Peterson
Why is it dangerous? Wouldn't it be beneficial?
Michael Walker
i was thinking about taking philosophy classes so i could be some stoic enlightened tree person like image so i sat in on some classes and its literally the faggiest shit ever
DONT take philosophy classes lest ye end up like one of the lobotomized nihilist std-having debt-crushed junkie suckers
Jayden Brooks
>Wouldn't it be beneficial?
No. All we know and believe is based on a shaky foundation we are not sure of, if we start to question it, we lose all certainty in anything whatsoever.
Easton Wright
>Philosophy is for LSD and weed only
This is truth. The ideas that come from being high are only good to the person who thought them.
Jacob Sanchez
One day Aryanism studies will be a class when all evil is purged
Gavin Reed
Philosophy is unironically THE most "pure" field of science. What the fuck do you think Ph.D stands for?
Grayson Turner
Philosophy is arguing about definitions. It's just infinite regress. Any term or concept you define will use words, which themselves need to be defined by words, which themselves need to be defined by words.
It's fucking stupid. The fact retardation such as "Justified True Beliefs" ever got taken seriously (and is still taken seriously in some ways today) is absurd.
Michael Ortiz
It's the foundation of all science. Basically the same as logic. Has it become too abstract, and have people lost their wits? Yes.
Caleb Parker
Philosophy is not arguing about definitions but purpose or meaning, how the cogs fit into a complete compressed view of existence. When you find someone who has the same understanding of words as you do, then you can really discuss philosophy. Why the fuck is philosophy even a thing to begin with what the fuck?
Nathan Cruz
>he thinks philosophy is science
Found the brainlet.
Ryan White
When you discuss purpose and meaning at the most fundamental levels, you inevitably have to start arguing definitions. It's unavoidable. Some philosophers like Quine actually realized this, but it seems like a lot of philosophy being taught today is archaic and WRONG.
Brayden Davis
You should read the beginning of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Doscovery. Thinking that philosophy poses absolutely no problems and is just "language" is dumb. Words have meaning and the idea that it's just about semantics and words is just stupid, my old friend.
Elijah King
>he thinks that Science needs philosophy as of today
LMAO
Kevin Rogers
>logic, ontology and epistemology are not the basis of all science
Those fields of philosophy form the basic axioms of the scientific method itself.
Kevin White
No it's not you retarded piece of shit
Ethan Hall
Trees need their roots. Especially their roots.
Connor Rivera
There is no reason for doing science without a philosophy.
Xavier Moore
No, philosophy is and always will be the most important science as it studies ideas and ideas create reality.
Brody Cox
>Those fields of philosophy form the basic axioms of the scientific method itself.
So what, my brainlet friend? The fact remains that philosophy of science is NOT science itself. Logic and epistemology are not the science themselves, they are the theories by which we use to study science but they are NOT science itself. Saying so would be to misunderstand the fact of demarcation between philosophy and science. Read Karl Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery", my friend.
And the fact also is that these philosophical theories are by far and large already established and not in anymore need of revision. To think it's necessary for scientists to study these theories is like wanting every speaker of English to study semantics or linguistics. It might be useful and Interesting on an intellectual level, but by no means necessary or mandatory.
>No it's not you retarded piece of shit
Yes it is. Philosophy is great but you have to be cautious of doing it too much. There's such a thing as philosophizing too much and it can be harmful to your psyche if left unchecked. Too much curiosity can harm you.
>Trees need their roots. Especially their roots.
Yes, but the study of Science is the study of the trees, not the roots. The roots gave birth to the tress, but once they're well established and work well (as the scientific method has gained prevalence and a sound foundation that just works) the focus is on the trees and branches, not the first cause. The fact that something is born out of philosophy doesn't mean that it's necessary to study the philosophy first. It's like saying that we need to learn the history of the English language before learning how to speak it. Although philosophical knowledge does very good to the intellect.
Matthew Davis
>The roots gave birth to the tress
Incorrect. That would be the seeds.
Hunter Sanchez
>There is no reason for doing science without a philosophy.
Hey, the burden of proof is on you. Scientists do science without the need of studying philosophy. By around the end of the 20th century, philosophy had become clearly separated from all of Science and scientific theories have advanced without the need for advancing philosophical theories. Philosophy of Science has been on the fringe and has mainly been restricted to simply the observation and commentary on Science rather than influencing on Science head on.
>No, philosophy is and always will be the most important science
How many fucking times will I fucking have to tell you that philosophy ISN'T a Science? Philosophy has absolutely no foundation, no set of axioms, nowhere to stand on. It's just pure and total speculation and does not have any object of research in particular whatsoever.
>It studies ideas and ideas create reality.
No, ideas don't create reality. Reality will exist regardless of "ideas" and philosophical theories.
Jacob Nguyen
>It's like saying that we need to learn the history of the English language before learning how to speak it.
Studying the history of a language is the same as learning to speak it.
Charles Hall
You're right, there's no need to have car mechanics around when you already know how to drive.
Blake Russell
Kierk what do you want?
Mason Sanders
>Studying the history of a language is the same as learning to speak it.
>imagine being this brainlet.
When a child picks up a language, he knows nothing of its history. He knows nothing of the norman conquests or the Saxons or the tribes that gave birth to the English language. I hope you're trolling, user.
>You're right, there's no need to have car mechanics around when you already know how to drive.
Thats not what I'm saying at all and hey, I'm not trying to shit on philosophy, I'm just saying that Science will go on regardless of it and recognizing this is a good thing. I'd love to discuss philosophy and philosophy of Science all day with you if you wanted, but I think it's important to be realistic about things and recognize that philosophical theories are needed for Science but these theories are not Science itself. Mistaking these both would be a great mistake. There are fundamental differences between the two and you just have to recognize it, otherwise you simply don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I find it ironic that the ones who most adamantly defend philosophy the most are the ones who least know anything of it.
What do you mean?
Ayden Davis
Like, you're using an actual name, you're really invested in this thread. What's going on?
Carter Sullivan
>When a child picks up a language, he knows nothing of its history. He knows nothing of the norman conquests or the Saxons or the tribes that gave birth to the English language. I hope you're trolling, user.
Everything written is history.
Adam Gutierrez
strawpoll.com
Please vote
Andrew Bailey
>Everything written is history.
Now, now, user. You're just talking like a Hegelian.
>Like, you're using an actual name, you're really invested in this thread. What's going on?
I always use a name and I get really invested in threads about philosophy.
Jonathan Nelson
>Now, now, user. You're just talking like a Hegelian.
No idea who they are, but may they live long and prosper.
Jack Miller
No. Any time philosophy reaches a conclusive, concrete, or applicable result, we stop calling it philosophy, and start referring to it as another branch of study entirely. This gives the illusion that philosophy makes no progress at all.
From Bertrand Russel:
>As soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology.
Nathaniel Wood
You're the only one fucking making sense here I'm really not used to this. Can you define any mid term goals , anything? Or are you just working downwards philosophy and just trying to find the base value of everything?
Jackson White
Ignorance is bliss. Trying too hard could lead to psychosis.
Isaiah Rivera
Based and redpilled, my friend.
What do you mean by that question, friend? My perspective on philosophy is that it's not a sicence, nor has it any delineated purpose besides "searching" for truth for its own sake. The purpose of doing philosophy is like doing a sort of activity, for recreational purposes, because "it brings satisfaction" in Wittgenstein's own words. That's about it.
At this point, the most useful and practical philosophy is religious and ethical philosophy, which can be applied to daily life. Other kinds of philosophical inquiries and philosophies have the purpose of intellectual recreation and little more.
Nathan Thomas
>Ignorance is bliss. Trying too hard could lead to psychosis.
Based and redpilled, friend. It's not good not healthy to ask too much.
Ryder Kelly
>He doesn't know who Hegel was
What a fucking brainlet.
Eli Fisher
If you can't make money off of it, then it is mostly useless
If you don't find it interesting, then it is entirely useless.
Plus who gives a shit about what some glow in the dark niggers from Gayreece thought about?
Brayden Martin
We like it because it's interesting. Nothing more. It's an activity, a hobby, a sport. Professional philosophers are like professional athletes and we amateur players. Nothing more, nothing less.
Justin Powell
>Bill Nye, the science guy, says I convinced him that philosophy is not just a load of self-indulgent crap
qz.com
This article made me think there might really be something to philosophy, but I've never looked into it much.
Mason Cox
>He gives a fucking shit about what Bill Nye says in the first place
You do realize he's not a "real" scientist to look up to, right?
John Ortiz
Why are namefags even worse than tripfags.
Justin Walker
>i dont understand the concept so it's not valuable
Mason Sanders
This image serves as a difficulty slider as well, any brainlet with enough time can become a sociologist while math is big boy braining, while philosophy isn't even playing the game.
Joseph Perry
Because they are afraid of the unknown, afraid of losing every beliefs they've taken for grant.
In other word, they blindfolded their own eyes in order to not see the monster.
Caleb Martinez
I think all of us are like that, philosophers or not.
Juan Bennett
>There's such a thing as philosophizing too much and it can be harmful to your psyche if left unchecked. Too much curiosity can harm you.
How so?
Juan Edwards
Actually they dont. To become a scientist you need to study the epistemological basics. Epistomology are the tools to science. You need to use them to actually do science. You literally cannot do science without knowing the basics of how knowledge and ideas work.
But you are also right. One does not need to revise the tools to be able to use the tools. You dont need to be able to make tools to be able to use them. However, you do need to know how to use the tools to be able to build a car, for example
However its very helpful to learn how to make the tools as well. Learning the first cause of the craft gives you and understanding that simply cannot be achieved in any other way
Camden Russell
>I find it ironic that the ones who most adamantly defend philosophy the most are the ones who least know anything of it.
Because they're emotionally invested. Emotion clouds the intellect
Connor Bell
>However its very helpful to learn how to make the tools as well. Learning the first cause of the craft gives you and understanding that simply cannot be achieved in any other way
Yeah, I think that the best scientists were also very philosophically inclined. I think that it actually helped scientists to have a more broader and more "creative" form of thinking which allowed them to have more broad perspectives and hence made easier to entertain new ideas that generated new frontiers in Science. Just see pic related.
Tyler Nelson
Modern "scientists" are a fucking joke. Especially that faggot bill nye. He is one of the biggest egotists i have seen. Jesus that guy is riddled with insecurities that he tries to compensate for by faking a superiority complex. The fact that "people" like this are not just taken seriously but even broadcasted as the arbiters of the universal truth is a testament to and evidence of how our society has degraded and how sick it has become
Jack Williams
"Pop Science" is a fucking joke, m8.
Jackson Hernandez
yesh, it is just a bunch of unproveable nonsense.
Austin Diaz
I mean how many "real" scientists are there even today who made progress even comparable to the scientists of the 20th century? Stephen hawking?
Juan White
>yesh, it is just a bunch of unproveable nonsense.
It's unprovable, but that doesn't mean it's nonsense. It's knowledge that isn't scientific, of course, it's unverifiable, but knowledge nonetheless.
Scientific knowledge doesn't grow today like it used to. Nowadays it isn't about a single genius who discovers many things like in ages past. It's made by teams of researches comprised of various people and not just one genius guy like Laplace or Broscovic or Isaac Newton. Everything is much more specialized now, it's not because of "Pop Science" though lol.
Tyler Bailey
false there were still land plants that made evapirotranspiration comparable to trees
Wyatt Cruz
To me that just says we dont have geniuses anymore.
I still think there is something to be said about how worthless people are allowed to be held to cult hero status in our society. Someone like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins would be laughed at in all circles but maybe cults back in the day, yet today their words are treated as universal truth
Benjamin Gomez
>To me that just says we don't have geniuses anymore.
Another possibility is that all the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and now it is nearly impossible for a single mind to have a novel breakthrough insight in any field. With teams of many people though, you can collaboratively reach the higher fruit.
Ian Lee
trees can't walk, retard
Aaron Gonzalez
>To me that just says we dont have geniuses anymore.
No, we do have geniuses. It's just that there isn't so much to discover anymore so easily like before. In the times of fucking Aristotle the guy could be fucking everything, mathematician, philosopher, biologist, architect, fucking everything, because he could study everything and add something new to every subject there was because everything was still so primitive and it was easier to add things. In the times of Isaac Newton we knew so little so Newton was able to discover a shitton of new stuff and was hailed as one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. But today, even if one had all the mental faculties Newton had, the fact remains that so much has already been discovered that the things left are not as interesting or as primitive and so it's much harder to discover.
Think about it, it's like discovering something new in medicine was easy during the times of Galen, just open up a body and look things up, but today things are much harder because we already know all the basics of medicine and anatomy and the things that one would be hailed as a "genius" for discovering is much more obscure and difficult, like seeing neurons from the inside out or some crazy shit like that.
Basically what said, you fucking faggot.
Ayden Peterson
That could be it, but science has been happening since Newton, yet we were seeing geniuses pop up until fairly recently.
Though it could also indeed be that because since the time of Newton we have been doing science that by now all the low hanging fruit has been picked and you need collective efforts to really do much.
Im just skeptical because collective work has generally become much more prevalent lately, not just in science
Owen Butler
>It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.
absolutely based, a scientist who doesn't subscribe to some objective all expansive worldview and understands the limits of human knowledge.
Cameron Diaz
Yeah that makes sense. Everything is becoming more reliant on technology these days because everything we could figure out without aid from technology has already been figured out. While the fundamentals of science remain the same, the simple raw data we have to deal with has gotten much more complicated and just simply bigger in size.