Dude lets just give up and let science figure all this philosophy stuff out

i said not to reply to me if i have to ask again ill send centipede demons to you and your families dreams for weeks on end. don’t fucking test me you ape

kek

I'm not but bring it anyway

its not philosophy either

Nigger read the essay before trying to outwit someone

...

fuck science

shut the FUCK up continental baby

t. analytic virgin

you obviously hate science you should be glad that there's an entire tradition of philosophers out there dedicated to deconstructing its method and pointing out its flaws and ontic commitments

yeah but who the fuck cares nigga

even worse, it's literally
>science has everything figured out, numbers are used in science, therefore numbers exist

What the fuck are you all talking about faggots?

I mean, if the Greeks had had that attitude, they would have been wrong about a lot less stuff.

>science provides the best framework for understanding reality that we have
Why does this upset Veeky Forums?
Don't the results speak for themselves?

>t. soulless bug

Because Veeky Forums is 99% pseuds and morons with narcisistic tendencies.

>dies of flu at 38

>thinks that this is the fate of high stock males

most people on Veeky Forums are "that guy," the guy who reads notes from the underground at 19 and thinks "holy shit that's literally me what a genius" and then goes around with that "but science brought us nukes, checkmate stemfags" retarded schtick

there’s a cursed image above your post just so you know

Did scientific thinking not bring about nukes, among other dangerous inventions?

>>science provides the best framework for understanding reality that we have
maybe

but it's not the only one

especially given all it's gay assumptions

Are there any alternatives (other than math) that have provided useful predictive power?
Genuinely curious

How do we synthesize Quine and Badiou?

Are there any reasons to believe that achieving predictive power is a sign of truth, rather than, say, merely evidence that we've mastered more of nature?

Genuinely curious.

What were the Greeks wrong about again?

The use of phalanx formation against manipular units.

>it's

Is there any metric that you can be sure of measures truth or are you just shitposting?
Genuinely curious

I love this prose like country music

Nice word game. If mastering nature with a theory isn't evidence of its truth, then what do you even mean by the word truth?

Is there any reason to believe the way we measure truth actually corresponds to truth or is just a construct by us and the real concept of truth is something we can't ever conceive or measure?

Is there any reason to believe our conscious experience is a sign of our existence, rather than merely being evidence of everything we associate with existence while we don't actually exist?

>mastering

>I use numbers to probe nature, but since I never get the same numbers, I create statistics to feel good about my work and I need to calibrate and fix my machines all the times because they break as soon as they are created

>if you don't have perfect knowledge you know nothing
Really faggot?

I always suspected that the anti-scientific anti-rational soul of post-Heideggerian continental philosophy was motivated by an unspoken commitment to a infallibilist criterion for truth and knowledge. They have realized, correctly enough, that perfect knowledge is unattainable, but -- unlike the likes of Wittgenstein and Quine and, for that matter, Heidegger and Kant -- have not adjusted their standards accordingly. (Nietzsche is a microcosm here -- in the early "Truth and Lie" he displays the same combination of a transcendental criterion and the rejection of the possibility of its fulfillment, but later also rejects the former.) What remains to them is to simply wallow in their own shit like Deleuze or play games with words like Derrida, unaware that the motivating principle of all their thinking -- hidden under all their post-structuralist trappings -- is the traditional Cartesian problematic.

Continentals have just realised the inescapable socio-political assumptions inherent in all philosophy, and have therefore abandoned artifical neutrality that the analytics still cling to, which doesn't let them transcend classical liberal thinking. The soul of philosophy is achieved with passionate engagement, not second-rate subservience to logic and empirical findings.Even the best anglo thinkers still can't seem to grasp that Hegel should be applied to social and historical dynamics.

if you are always already in ideology you cannot stand outside of ideology and say "aha, ideology" -- this is a self-stultifying position

>mfw analytics think real philosophy even deals with the same things as baby ass science

hegel havent studied logic, thats why he reads like a shit

Uhh, which is exactly the point I was making? The solution isn't to abandon the horizon of ideology and look at it from the outside. That's the whole idea of immanent critique. The possibility of recognising and articulating your own social position into a material force, however, is the practical criterion of truth. Clearly, ontological categories can have meaning, but that meaning is shown through social change and glimpsed with historical analysis. The a-temporal pretensions of analytic philosophy is why it has basically no relevance in anything beyond epistemology.

>How can ideology be real if our eyes aren't real?