What is your sincere opinion on philosophy?

>What is your sincere opinion on philosophy?
Selfwanking excuses with a nice smattering of rhetoric exercise.
All in all, not much more or less useful than playing vidya.
You can enjoy it with the right mindset, you'll train some skills, get nothing real done and if you do well some fools will happily look on and applaud you thinking you the best thing ever.

Everything wrong with the world in this post

Then it should be easy to argue it more deeply than that.

dumb question. thats like saying whats my opinion on oxygen and blood. if you have a brain you will use philosophy.

The world doesn't make sense, everything is random and spontaneous. Attempting to make sense of it is a slow descent into madness.

Attached: 1542520081482.jpg (960x924, 189K)

Most will not be ready to accept it when you distill truth down to as pure of as essence as that.

Attached: 3D v 2D.png (700x318, 92K)

It's nice to think of some philosophical questions while I'm in bed instead of contemplating suicide or how pathetic i am instead.

its interesting I just wish my iq was high enough for it

You know there are philosophies for that right? You yourself made a philosophical statement that endorses existentialism.

OP Are you white? desublx

>What is your sincere opinion on philosophy?
The kind of thing retards choose on academic level, but most intelligent students could get a degree in it if you give them a week or two.
Aside that reading shit up and using ideas are useless if you can't think for yourself, so bump

Attached: 1548139622496.png (660x600, 520K)

why did you post a dogfucker in the OP

It's mental masturbation.

It's atheistic existentialism (Sartre) or nothing. Anything else is people pretending they know stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Philosophy=physics

Attached: einstein.jpg (850x400, 60K)

a lots of the first philosophys have to come with metaphysics because it was the unknown and yea that was the start of physics itself, i think that we let metaphysics out of place so early we should study it more there is a lot to discover from that plane

Literally pissing in the wind
t. former philosophy major

It's gigacringe

Philosophy is just refined pedantry.

Philosophers are homeless men and people who can't take a "you're wrong" sitting around and sucking each other off. There's nothing, nothing at all, to be gained from philosophy. It's all literally, objectively incorrect.

"The idea of synchronicity as extending beyond mere coincidence (as well as the paranormal generally) is widely rejected in the academic and scientific community." kek

Philosophy is a sp00k

Attached: 1510999331967.jpg (753x800, 170K)

It's the way in which loser motherfuckers get to feel superior to society without needing formal education, money or status.

T:PHILOSOPHER

>i am not allowed to think about anything that is not accepted by the scientific authorities

Attached: NPC.jpg (636x773, 32K)

Spook is the idea that anything that is not objectively apprehendable is not real. Then according to this philosophy, the person coming to this conclusion is not real. Hence this ideology is an inherently self disproving one, as the moment one chooses to conclude its true, it is disproven.

>it's wrong, but i don't want it to be, so i choose to be ignorant

>its wrong because the authorities said so

Attached: wd-npc.jpg (1400x788, 83K)

>SCIENCE GROUP GOOD
>THINKER MAN BAD
>NO QUESTION SCIENCE MAN
>QUESTION BAD

Attached: IMG_4707.jpg (416x435, 10K)

>doing things instead of thinking about things
literal knuckle dragger

Attached: 1544246214218.gif (746x479, 953K)

not big on philosophy but yeah you have to be a literal npc if your immediate reaction to anything philosophical is rejection

Of course you can question it, if you do it properly and have actual grounds to stand on.

It's literally what they are for. To be an authority on such subjects.

Why npc? Because it's your standard insult? Pretty much everyone I've met has unfounded philosophical beliefs.

Extremely autistic. Seriously, every major philosopher was probably somewhere on the spectrum. All of them are people with a lot of ideas about the world that are about 95% wrong, and argue that every philosopher before them was 100% wrong. That being said all of it is worth learning, as long as you personally find something valuable. It helps you gain a better understanding of reality.

Attached: dg6mXGp.gif (636x299, 56K)

because it means you are almost certainly a boring uninquisitive peabrain

Fair enough, I suppose. Original.

Wow, the first guy is an absolute normie. He completely focuses on culture as if that somehow makes a country idyllic and peaceful. Part of his argument actually contradicts itself anyhow. "Then there's Wole Basedinka... who won the Nobel prize in 1986. He had to flee the country because the government wanted to kill him." That just proves that the country is dangerous and/or corrupt. Why would anyone ever want to go to a place like that? Plus the guy wants to just buy a $450 drum that he's never going to use, just to show it off in his house. It's absolutely insane.
He is right on one point though, in that it is an exciting to be in Nigeria, just for all the wrong reasons. If you're looking for action and adventure, a chance to fight in the streets (and probably die) then you'll certainly have some fun with that. Outside of that, I wouldn't ever want to waste my time watching people communicate with drums, or watch people mark the "season of the yam" with stomping and masks.
Not only that, but "Nigerians don't need money for stereos or CDs: They make their own music!" is such a blatantly stupid thing to say. Anybody can do that, but not everyone wants to leave the comfort of their home, and then embark on a journey to find someone who knows how to play their obscure song. This guy really needs to learn how to set up a debate better, and this is coming from someone who isn't that great at debating.

Why do you assume people interested in philosophy don't have grounds to stand on?That's not true. Many philosophers simply elaborate or add to others ideas.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
There's no such thing as meaning. It's all "coincidence". Everything is predetermined. If you dispute this, you better have some absolutely mind-shattering, ridiculously insightful argument, because it'd contradict our model of reality.

Why is this model of reality correct? What evidence is there for that? If everything is predetermined what determined it?

Also you do know there are philosophies that are applicable even if you take this premise as fact? Things like the nature of man,what is consciousness,societal models for government,etc. The philosophy of science or logic presupposes science itself. You can't have science without philosophy.

Love it, massive respect for it

Philosophy a spook
This is an original post

Attached: stirner.gif (200x175, 5K)

Is this bait, or do you just want me to arbitrarily argue every single point?

Here, I was referring to the concept original user discussed. There is more than just what I stated, obviously. Nature of man assumes there's humanity. We're not special. We're meat machines. We'll continue to study ourselves until we die or can predict us completely. Consciousness needs no philosophy. That we don't understand it doesn't mean you should form abstract arguments about it. We'll soon find out, regardless of what people think about it now, not by argument but by research. Model of government is arbitrary, and also a science. Whatever lets us reach whatever arbitrary goal we set for ourselves the most efficiently is the ideal form.

Well you are literally admitting that science cannot prove multiple questions and are simply rejecting even the presentation of ideas to explain it. This directly contradicts your position on the objective realism you present as the nature of the universe
>do you expect me to arbitrarily argue all these points
Yes since you present your perspective as objectively true.

>Philosophy a spook
Considering philosophy to be a spook is also philosophy
Checkmate Mr. Ghostbuster

>objectively
No such thing, the only objective truth is that there are only subjective truths, and what is objective truth for you is subjective opinion for me, there is no one right answer.

There's a difference between not being able to answer something right now and not being able to answer something at all. We cannot, for example, measure and define consciousness right now, but we'll most likely be able to. Being able to map out and correctly predict neural systems will be a large leap forward. I do not believe there is some inherent nature of man that won't be made obvious once we understand our brains, and I do actually believe the sciences can prove the other two questions. Also, you should be able to understand causal determinism without me spoonfeeding you. There's no need to reinvent the wheel in every discussion.

Of course there is. We can play around with language to make it seem otherwise and we can disagree, but things are always one way and not the other. Perspective doesn't matter. If perspective is needed, you're incorrect.

>perspective doesn't matter
Subjectively wrong. The only things that are one way or the other are the things that we subjectively view as one way or another, what is true for the group is not always true for the individual.

How does that make sense? Things are true or they aren't. If I think it's true or if my community thinks it's true doesn't matter. Perspective doesn't change the state of things. Give an example of something that's true for the group and not the individual, please.

I think that you should open this picture

Attached: Snapchat-719085444.jpg (1080x1920, 286K)

90% of it is mental masturbation that has no application to daily living or is particularly useful in any productive way.

Mind games for the realistically inept.

I think the article is from the onion

Lifesaver and greatest cathalyst for changes for the better in a person under the right circumstances. Too much of it results in mental wanking, leading to waste of time and unneeded negativity.

I love how none of those philosophy wankers replied to your answers.

I'm not really the ideal discussion partner when it comes to philosophy, and my worldview is extreme enough to negate most philosophical concepts. I still think I'm right, though.

Philosophy is just a function of a human mind. If you do not engage in philosophy, you are less than human.

Attached: My wife.jpg (698x720, 103K)

The human mind makes up a lot of shit. We should ignore most of it. Religion, belief, love, fear, emotion, ethics, meaning. Philosophy. Memories are faked, experiences altered, thoughts biased. I'd say you are less than human if you can't recognise and control that, because only animals believe all they think and feel.

I think you're missing the point he's trying to make, although he's explaining it wrong.

Nothing can be objective because we're stuck to the confines of our own minds. Philosophy is about getting as close to as the objective as we can, but nothing we see or think is true. It's all through our own perspective(s). It's not true for the group or for the individual.

Isn't that why we use tools to measure and observe? Because we don't trust our own minds. Philosophy is also a product of our thoughts so why are you giving more legitimacy to that than actual attempts to find objective truths? Also, I'm pretty sure we can reach or be pretty close to the truth. I bet that if you cut your head off then you would die. This is a fact and it is so regardless of anyone's opinion.

You're being way too general and thinking what you're saying is truth when it's not. Regardless if we're using tools to observe things, there's always another layer under what we're seeing, we're also limited by technology. Even if we had some godlike technology that could look at truths, we're not even sure if we could interpret that data because again, our minds have a limit.

The dying point doesn't make any sense because you have your own opinion on what it is to die. Can we think of our cells going back into the living ecosystem once our brain functions a form of living? Is there even life after death? You're being too general and thinking it's a truth.

As for the legitimacy of philosophy, as I said, it's about trying to get as close to the truth as we can, not about finding it.

I'm the guy, if it matters. I don't think that sounds quite right. What our senses perceive is a kind of truth, but it might not match up with reality. You have to separate what you can sense and what you know. And like the other guy said, that's why we use equipment, tools and mathematics, isn't it? Those tell us the objective truth.

brain functions cease* is what i meant

Greeks said everything and there is no philosophy after Aquinas.

Utilitarianism is also a philosophy, you are preaching it right now, therefore mentally masturbating.

Again, I think you're mixing up different concepts. Everyone has their own reality, but we can't say which one is the objective reality.

We can compare things and make rules, like 2+2=4 or like you said, use tools to make observations and agree on them, but we're not actually finding any truths, we're just making standards and basing research and science off of them.

I think science is great and more practical, but philosophy definitely has a place too because we need standards for lines of thinking too

greeks were all fags but based assessment

There is only one reality. Everyone has their own perception of it.

checked and based my friend

Attached: Patrick Bateman.jpg (1024x1024, 239K)

>You're being way too general and thinking what you're saying is truth when it's not
Can you demonstrate that it's not? Otherwise it's just gratuitous skepticism. Don't try to redefine death, we all know what that is and it's the total interruption of the body's biological processes without any chance of recovery. If your head's not attached to your body anymore then you're surely going to be dead in a matter of seconds, then your body will decompose later. This is a fact and an objective truth of our reality.
>Regardless if we're using tools to observe things, there's always another layer under what we're seeing, we're also limited by technology

We reached conclusions that we would have never reached with our senses alone thanks to technology.
>Even if we had some godlike technology that could look at truths, we're not even sure if we could interpret that data because again, our minds have a limit.
Yet we would be closer to truth, especially because that in science demonstration and repeatability/reproducibility is everything. Being able to demonstrate something means that you're absolutely onto something. Even if it's not the philosophical truth you're talking about, it's still the best thing we'll ever have.

No perceived reality matches up with the real one. That doesn't mean it isn't there. What do you mean is the difference between truths and standards? A rule is a law is a standard is a truth, to me.

in the last century, economists have taken the role of philosophy: Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc. These are the newest philosophers, since all other philsophers are long gone and previous subjects replaced by science. Nowadays its just deontology vs. consequentialism vs. utilitarianism

Attached: smug_cap.png (420x420, 9K)

You're just being arrogant and doubling down on the death thing for some reason. Even in science things get redefined at some point when we have more information. Your'e being willingly ignorant if you think we know everything about dying.

As for everything else just look at my last post to the other dude
>Again, I think you're mixing up different concepts. Everyone has their own reality, but we can't say which one is the objective reality.

We can compare things and make rules, like 2+2=4 or like you said, use tools to make observations and agree on them, but we're not actually finding any truths, we're just making standards and basing research and science off of them.

I think science is great and more practical, but philosophy definitely has a place too because we need standards for lines of thinking too

Either way, I think this is as far as we're going to go since you doubled down on our definition of death being objective so I'm gonna stop here, was fun though

It's fine as it's seen right now - a tool for teaching people how to critically think, like k-12 mathematics. Few take it as seriously as the hard sciences, yet people who are interested in it can pursue degrees in it, and if they really want, they can even teach it, or network to get jobs somewhat related to it.

I respect the people that study it, and hope that it enriches their lives in some way. That said, you can't philosophize away a heart condition, a supply/demand problem, or an application crash. It's a modus for thinking which is universally useful, but leads to no major innovations by itself. I put it on the same level as psychology, literature, liberal arts, political science, etc.

Those subjects all have their uses and are interesting in their own right, but "going to school" for these things is usually a mistake. There's little it can accomplish by itself without being combined with another discipline.

Also, I've only known two philosophy students, and they were both insufferable. If your autism is powerful enough, you can frame anything as a philosophical quandary, but good luck using that talent to solve any of your ACTUAL day-to-day problems.

Attached: 1489607029926.jpg (1032x1200, 186K)

Tools don't tell you the objective truth. They are no better than your senses.

I really like it. One of the interests I'm glad I've developed is to understand the world and myself. I am not very knowledgeable, maybe because of my age, but everyone has free time to spend during life spam, maybe someday I will get to understand every Plato and Aristotle books

Hes a sissy azn boi

What do you guys do to search for/study the objective truth? I read some literature and philosophy books and watch online classes that give no certificate, just for kicks.

They are in the way that they are disconnected from any perceived reality, and only interact with the true one.

STEM classes and books. Just reading about stuff is good for understanding.

A cope for poor sexless old losers. The world is too big and constantly changing, you will never figure it out and those guys who pretend they did are just stuck mentally in highschool waiting forma praise.

Imagine knowing that a guy named Socrates said this, tho in broader lines and that everyone who doesn't know that truth is not wise nor philosopher

>Your'e being willingly ignorant if you think we know everything about dying.
I mean, what we can demonstrate to be death we call death. It was my mistake to call it truth in the way you mean truth, but I really don't know why you're adding extra to it. Is it not true that when your body stops working completely and will not recover its biological functions anymore for sure is the currentt definition of death? What makes you think that there's more to that? Even if for the sake of continuing the conversation I accept that there might be something more we don't understand about dying, without evidence, what reasons do I have to do so other than exercising my imagination? I don't like to assume things. When there will be evidence that there's more to dying then that's when I'll be open to redefine it, but let's be honest, there's nothing else on the plate right now.
>We can compare things and make rules, like 2+2=4 or like you said, use tools to make observations and agree on them, but we're not actually finding any truths, we're just making standards and basing research and science off of them.
Truth is a philosophical concept, I don't think it's even relevant in the context of science. Scientists don't find "truths". If I remember correctly, there can only be various degrees of certainty but no such thing as truth. I understand all of that, and I'm perfectly aware that philosophy is also useful. I may have fucked up in this conversation since I haven't been sleeping well for a while but it was also fun for me. It wasn't my intention to call our current understanding of death objective in the ultimate sense. What I was trying to say is that no one can actually demonstrate that there's something more or something less right now, so it's not completely incorrect to say that our understanding and our information match the reality we're observing.

A lack of stim is cause for a bit of fishing atm

Bruh, you expect us to read all that lmao. 95% of r9k is stupider than pic related lol

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 55K)

I don't think it's anything that complicated. Maybe I could have made my reply shorter but english isn't my first language.

Everything except ethics is a waste of time, and even that can't be applied because free will doesn't exist.

Attached: democritus-quote-3.png (932x477, 151K)

Stoicism superior philosophy