Is philosophy any good in general?

Is philosophy any good in general?
I'm a STEM person and was always hesitant to get into it thinking that it's extremely subjective and ultimately leads nowhere.
But watching heated discussions made me wonder if it's worth the time.

If you just want to do dip your toes and be done with it, then read The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and you're pretty much good
(outside philosophical discussions, that is)

...

Go fuck yourself with you tumblr-tier image

just watch the fake news and do what your told

STEM is just applied philosophy lad

You can look at it that way for sure.

Meaning?

>how do i philistine?
just keep doing what you're doing your already so lost in the cave you're quoting socrate's prisoners

he is a big STEM brain, don't question his epistemology

That when fake news are within range you believe their contents, and when people tell you to do things you obey them.

You're pretty angry for a person who is defending something called "love of thinking". Did it not teach you not to feel anxious about posts on Veeky Forums?
I'm actually open minded and just look for new things to learn.

no one's angry, he's not defending

are you an engineer?

I don't understand this post

No need to be homophobic

In general philosophy is not good. In specific, philosophy is the missing link in your education. It allows you to talk meaningfully about every subject and join everything together in a way that's coherent, useful, and beneficial to your own person.

if you didn't go for a pure math or theoretical field, it's probably not important for you outside ethics.

The state of Veeky Forums intellectuals. Engineers are gay amirite lmao?
t. Aimless literature sophomore

What do I read to achive such things?

Plato, particularly the Socratic dialogues, epistemology of science, and the early continental philosophers. The stoics are helpful for understanding spiritual matters in a semi-secular way. Once you've read this you should have a good foundation and be able to read whatever you want without drowning in it, except maybe post-modernism, which requires knowledge of the pre-socratics.

Just read Wittgenstein and be done with it.

Philosophy is the most important field of study. I know that as a STEM type person you may think that is a silly thing to say, but once you study various fields of philosophy you will see that I am correct.

>it's extremely subjective
wew lad

this exactly how you don't go about doing philosophy

If you want to form an opinion on philosophy then you have to read philosophy

>have basic knowledge of most philosophers' views and important ideas
>instantly appear to be a genius by the uneducated

>No experimental basis
>No universal language like math
>Is purely product of a dude sitting and having thoughts pop up inside his head
Am I wrong somewhere?

Yeah, you don't understand what subjective means

Experiment is something external, not dependant on one's opinion, which is what subjective is. Same is universal language that is math. Are you sure you know what subjective means?
There's a reason why philosophy isn't among the exact sciences. Why do you think that is?

Philosophy is just a language game for autistic people. The best philosophers know this.

Bill "hit 'em then quit 'em" Clinton's fav book

I physically cringed while reading this post

Subjective means dependant on the individual.
I'll take Descartes as an example. His cogito serves as an axiom for his philosophy. It is a true and irrefutable claim, from which he extrapolates to reach different conclusions through pure reason. There is nothing subjective about this at all, reason is universal and the cogito applies to anybody capable of thinking, so even you should be able to understand it.
I'm currently in STEM but you seriously need to learn more about philosophy before you make stupid claims.

If anything you could argue this
that there are inherent flaws to philosophy as Wittgenstein pointed out, but to say it's "subjective" demonstrates a poor understanding of either philosophy or the english language.

holy fuck you retard

Experiments don't tell you shit about how or why things happen, they just show you what. Everything else is on you, and is in some way subjective

Just watch Neil Degrasse Tyson and Rick and Morty for the rest of your life

>Experiments don't tell you shit about how or why things happen, they just show you what. Everything else is on you, and is in some way subjective
So now you're attacking experiments as a whole? Holy shit, you're retarded.

>There's a reason why philosophy isn't among the exact sciences.
Look into the history of western science, not to mention the etymology of "scientist".

>There's a reason why philosophy isn't among the exact sciences. Why do you think that is?
Why didn't you answer my question? It's like it wasn't convenient for you or something.

So hard man

What a great answer. I'm done here.

Because it's a meaningless question.

It doesn't fit within the definition of a science, how is this at all relevant? Do you really believe science is the only means of obtaining any truth?

Seriously consider this post
and also the fact that you're the embodiment of a stereotype

>Same is universal language that is math.
Why do you come to a discussion about science and philosophy if you know nothing about rationalism and empiricism? If all philosophy is subjective because it is not experimental, then you can't say math isn't subjective.

>Do you really believe science is the only means of obtaining any truth?
People made science to obtain truth. That's what it's for. If some method or general directions shows to produce result, it'd inevitably became a science, an exact one at that. It's like when people say that unconventional medicine is better than conventional. It's just doesn't make any sense, conventional is what works.
>and also the fact that you're the embodiment of a stereotype
It's like your frame for claiming someone stereotypical is incredibly large so that you could disregard any opinion that confronts your way of thinking. So much for someone defending philosophy.

>I'm a STEM person
Lmao shut up you little bitch. Identifying with your major, I'm taking engineering to but that doesn't make me think I'm so well reasoned I can't read philosophy. You're the type of person to hate Plato because he "strawmans". Definitely fuck off

>People
Philosophers.

Believe it or not Aristotle divided the sciences.

>I'm done here.
I thought you were done here?

>If some method or general directions shows to produce result, it'd inevitably became a science, an exact one at that.
Once again, you sound as if you are completely ignorant of the very concept of rationalism.

Absolute bullshit

Even in many scientific fields it's mostly conjecture based on observations.
The theory of evolution for example has no basis whatsoever in experimentation since it's impossible to simulate the millions of years that it would require for complex organisms.

You're also arguing as though the only truths that exist are material ones which once again is simply wrong.

I'm going to stop feeding (You)s since you're not well informed enough in philosophy and I'm wasting my time but I recommend you start with the greeks.

t. has never done any actual research in his life

"just look at the data bro!" is not how it works

most engineers are fucking retarded

t. engineer

>The theory of evolution for example has no basis whatsoever in experimentation since it's impossible to simulate the millions of years that it would require for complex organisms.
So-called microevolution has been demonstrated in countless papers. Antibiotic resistance is basically a proxy of evolution too, and is a phenomenon no one would discount.

>Even in many scientific fields it's mostly conjecture based on observations.
lol no

>>Even in many scientific fields it's mostly conjecture based on observations.
>lol no

no you

experiments don't magically give you theories

Think about this: we've been dropping shit for millenia. How come we didn't have an even borderline coherent theory of gravity until galileo?

>So-called microevolution has been demonstrated in countless papers. Antibiotic resistance is basically a proxy of evolution too, and is a phenomenon no one would discount.
Yeah but not macroevolution

Think about this for a second:
All scientific evidence is equally well supported by "god did it lol" as any other scientific theory. Obviously you wouldn't support that though! Do you know why that is?

Fun fact: the heliocentrism of Copernicus and Galileo was actually MUCH LESS supported by the data at the time than the geocentrism of everyone else