We don't study alchemy because chemistry has entirely replaced it...

How is philosophy dead?
It concerns itself with questions that science can never answer, like moral dilemmas

Science should be replaced because it doesn't inherently help humans live any happier.

I think for a practical reason philosophy has given us logic and gives us different ways of thinking to adopt and to further the pure fields of any field. In order to advance mathematics you have to advance the philosophy of mathematics, for instance.

Some people enjoy it, it doesn't hurt anyone so let them be.

Sure its practical application is minimal to almost useless, should we remove everything that doesn't serve a function? Stop being a twat.

well written troll 8/10

>its practical application is minimal to almost useless

It might be entirely useless regarding practical applications p:

Some people seem to be saying that science is unable to answer certain questions, but that belief is narrow-minded. Astronomy was once a philosophy and not a science; in fact, Plato himself tried to explain how space works. I doubt Plato could have ever imagined the wonders of Hubble. In time, science will evolve and be able to answer the desired question.
How much philosophy do you think is being produced that accomplishes these goals? Most philosophy that is being produced and has ever produced is a waste. How much philosophy is necessary for these things? Does Kripke make people happier?
We do not need a body of philosophers to come up with an alternative to science which I doubt exists anyway.
I'm fine with people having fun. But philosophy pretends to be a source of knowledge when all it does is propagate gibberish.

I feel that you're not properly thinking about what the fuck conscousness is. We can't even tell if it's physical, non-physical, we can't even formulate coherent sentences about it.

>In time, science will evolve and be able to answer the desired question.
>It's practical application is minimal
Why is Veeky Forums filled with illiterates?

Why does nobody acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible philosophical axioms and infinitely many criteria for the judgement of these axioms?

It seems like once you realise this, all philosophical discussions become either laughable speculations about what the "true" definitions of concepts are (when these concepts are obviously arbitrarily defined) or flailing about within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable* conjectures. And the judgement of these speculations and conjectures is pretty much based on marketing.

I have never seen a worthwhile response to this. Can someone please give me an explanation?

* I mean we can't currently, at this moment, verify these things (e.g., We go to heaven after we die", "Once computers become fast enough, they will gain a consciousness"). And I know that science is merely a subset of philosophy. And I know there isn't an agreed upon scientific method. And I know there isn't an agreed upon definition of verify.

A quote from one of the most venerated "academics" in the field.
"The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self."
And people in this thread will still try to justify this network of frauds.

Ironic shilling is still shilling, Soren

It's not an alternative to science... it's the foundation of science altogether. You have to learn the philosophy of the subject and then use philosophical thinking in order to advance the field.

For instance, you could use philosophical thinking to develop calculus from algebra, trigonometry and geometry as well as logical proofs and some physics.

If you are only thinking practically, or applicably, then you're not going to get calculus... just interesting ways to use the fields already discovered more creatively.

A lot of discoveries are dead-ends and the tip of discoveries are either amazing or they're illogical or they haven't reached relevance yet.

I mean we are still looking for an overarching view on physics that brings together general theory and quantum physics.
That we are looking for more overarching views on philosophy would suggest there is more to it. In fact, I think that makes sense, you need philosophy to be as diverse as possible because the philosophies of other branches follow after it.

>"The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self."

Am I too much of a brainlet to understand philosophy if I can't understand this

He's just saying that the self is the mind and the body relating to the relation of mind and body. Later in the quote he explains that it can be a negatively unified relation (prioritizing one over the other, "relating the relation to the relation") or a "positive third" if the whole self (mind and body) relates not just to one or the other, but to its whole self.

I've never read Kierkegaard but "people" like to post this quote here

You're honestly more retarded than the OP, and that's saying a lot.

It's not that science is unable to answer those questions, it's that the discipline of science, necessarily constituted by scientists who dictate the limits of their field, sees these questions as fundamentally philosophy and to be dealt with within philosophy. I don't know how much you know about the history of science, but Epicurus essentially laid the groundwork for what science is today in his proto-empiricist explication of underdetermination. The role of science, as understood by science, is to understand how the world works, not what the world is like. You are making a category mistake.

Don't feel bad. All philosophy rambles like this. I know because I once eagerly read philosophy, only to be disappointed.
I'm sorry, but you two straight-out have no idea how math and science works. No mathematician or science applies philosophical thinking to make new theories. They use in-field experience and knowledge.
But it is impossible to know what the world is like. It is possible to make theories - you can make infinitely many - but, as pointed out, they are all unfalsifiable. It's just guessing.

>No mathematician or science applies philosophical thinking to make new theories.

How do you think general theory came about?
I don't know what your conception of philosophy is, or how you think I'm using it, but any abstract thinking works better within a system of abstract thinking and philosophy is the one field that promotes separate types of abstract thinking. Again logic came from philosophy.

You don't understand what you are talking about

For fucks sake.

All of modern science that you know is a subset of philosophy. Before science was called science, it was called philosophy. This is because philosophy is the pursuit and the attaining of knowledge or wisdom, and because science falls under that. Who knew.

The philosophy you're probably referring to must mean things like moral, or metaphysical, or ethical, or logical or epistemological philosophy, and they remain separate from empirical philosophy and science because we simply cannot observe these things or they are too complex for us to grapple with. However, it is the pursuit of knowledge in the beginning for subjects like metaphysics that is the first step in attaining objective empirical knowledge of the subject. If you think philosophy is useless, you are by extent saying that all of science is useless, as SCIENCE IS PHILOSOPHY.

Fuck off.

I study alchemy

Fuck you dude. Fuck you.

>begins with an argument
>implicit postivism
>proceeds to utilize a philosophical position
CLOSE YOUR EYYYYYYYYYEEEEEESSSSS!!!! PRAY FOR BAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIITTTT!!! CLEANSE THIS EARTH AND BRING FORTH DOOMSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I completely agree with you, OP.

All philosophy rests on "axioms." An axiom is something that somebody has just made up because otherwise their argument collapses due to a lack of proof. They say "my argument is not correct unless you let me make things up," and then complain when you tell them to fuck off and stop making shit up.

>"But don't you understand? Without axioms there can be no philosophy!"
This is an argument that presumes we should have philosophy, which is a totally unsupported presumption which I do not share.

As soon as you point this out they will just huff and ignore you. I understand that you can't hold someone hostage to dialogue, but for a field which "prides" itself on its rational argument they seem totally unable to argue that their field should even exist.

>But it is impossible to know what the world is like. It is possible to make theories - you can make infinitely many - but, as pointed out, they are all unfalsifiable. It's just guessing.

First off, falsificationism is a philosophy of science, the dominant philosophy perhaps, but a philosophy all the same. Secondly, there are both scientific and metaphysical methodologies that can be appealed to in order to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of the pictures of the world presented to us both by science and philosophy. Considerations of ontological commitment, intuitive strength, and physical/logical parsimony are just a few of the ways that competing metaphysical pictures are weighed against each other. Philosophy has developed its own methodology

Perhaps Einstein's special relativity tells us something about the ontology of space and time, perhaps it doesn't. Maybe it says one thing about it, maybe it says another. This is just one of the problems that philosophers, physicists, and philosophers of physics grapple with in their fields. There is far more interdisciplinary work occurring now than there has been in the past half-century. Your view is outdated even among scientists.

science = empirical
philosophy = "i made it up but i want to believe it"

>"axioms"
>woozyfrog.jpeg
But for real tho who said anything about rational argument YOU DIRTY MOTHAFUCKIN....

"""""""""""""""""""""""axioms"""""""""""""""""""""""

>empirical
wait till he gets a load of this guy. but also
>science = (mostly debunked) epistemological position backed by 300 or so years of philosophy
>philosophy = wahhhhhh

based empiricism need not concern itself with what some fucking dude thinks.

if his thoughts are correct their effects will be observable in the natural world.

lol get shrekt """"philosophers""" (read: pseuds).

Then can you explain to a peasant as lowly as me the value of philosophy? Everybody in this thread is making dramatic arguments esteeming philosophy as the base of all knowledge and how fundamental and useful it is, and I just don't see how the vast majority of philosophical texts do that.
I don't know what you mean by "general theory." But, to use mathematics as an example, group theory was created by mathematicians thinking about mathematics. Mathematics has its own "system of abstract thinking," as do other subjects.

Moreover, this thread has basically been entirely focused on philosophy of science, but philosophy is so much more than that. I have yet to see a defense of why metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics, is useful.
thanks guise
I have strong doubts as to the effectiveness of this methodology. I feel the same criteria can be used to approve of pseudoscience or fake historical theories. Just imagine, for example, if people used that methodology to try to figure out why the sky is blue.

>They say "my argument is not correct unless you let me make things up,"
You mean, like mathematicians?

youre literally using the language einstein learned from this guy you raging faggot. but theres no way you can be serious about this.

Mathematicians are also mostly bullshitting.

Our system of mathematics is an abstraction of the natural world. Maths that doesn't reflect the natural world is simply wrong.

Sometimes we can take maths and use it to make predictions about the natural world, but this is only possible where the abstraction that we already have is sufficiently accurate.

i am completely serious.

all knowledge is only possible through observation. knowledge you make up isn't knowledge, it's just your fucking opinion. until you observe it in the natural world it remains just some rambling scribbles on a napkin

I can't vouch for other things, but friend, math is a million times closer to philosophy than any science whatsoever. Did you know Euclid's proofs are still valid almost five thousand years? Did you know there was virtually no application whatsoever of number theory until cryptography came around?

Mathematics can be done in a basement or in a university, it doesn't matter. And the same follows for philosophy. You absolutely cannot say the same for any natural science whatsoever.

>Maths that doesn't reflect the natural world is simply wrong.
Mathematics is derived from the natural world. Trade, biology, etc. helped us derive mathematics in the first place. It is the code embedded into our reality. We have DISCOVERED this system, not created it.

nigga this is history of phil. 101 stuff these arent grandiose statements. sorry you either A). Read shit philosophers B). are a shitty reader and dont aspire to understand what youre reading by placing it in its intellectual and critical context or C). are just retarded. based kant did not call it the queen of the sciences for advertisement purposes he really respected copernicus and his homies and shit but that was like three hundred years ago just take our word for it now plz okay.

I agree. What I mean to say is that when you take the maths we have discovered and try to build on it without using observations of the natural world to do so (theoretical maths) you're on shaky ground. The predictions could be correct, but only if our observations so far are sufficiently accurate.

literally just recounted earlier pic relateds groundbreaking philosophical position. youre just too stupid to know it

>literally just recounted earlier pic relateds groundbreaking philosophical position
can't be that fucking groundbreaking if i can come up with it showering before i go off to work a real job

philosophers in a nutshell - sucking each other's cocks over trivial "discoveries" that working men have known about for centuries

three centuries late to the party my guy im glad you feel like youve contributed to the discourse

>muh natural world as it "really is"
Maybe you should actually read some philosophy before you opine on the philosophy of mathematics

>that working men have known about for centuries
>is-ought
>nondualism
>things-in-themselves
>primacy of signification in discourse
you’re a bad troll

>philosophers have known the answer for 3 centuries
>they continue to exist
>they continue to have a "discourse"
your field is a joke

>reality doesn't exist
I think therefore I am, faggot. Even if reality is composed solely of me, it still exists.

>knowledge you make up
>observation
okay dude so walk me through this here how do we observe stuff

implying neolithic wise guys weren't having this same discussion. i bet even grug got upset about whether lookspeak or thinkspeak was superior speak

>is-ought
never said this, faget. i said that there is no ought without proof.

>how do we observe stuff
objectively

>"b-b-b-but that's impossible"
true but there is a spectrum

>a joke
at least one that it is aware it is a joke, and thats a start as far as im concerned. but hey who says we cant have fu like mathematicians and make wage cucks like you pay for it with your taxes

what do you mean by "objectively?" like we run into objects or what?

No, you've missed the point. Are you a Veeky Forumsposter? I think all those "u cant no nuffins" have stultified you. The laws that govern reality do not exist of themselves, they are derived from the forms of perception, which are based in the human mind.

I summon, ye, based Kant

>The laws that govern reality do not exist of themselves,
you really don't know this. It's possible that they don't but it's also possible that they do

>le language is subjective argument
basic bitch semantics. try again but this time address the substance of the argument.

i know that you're attempting to drive at the point that empirical knowledge is still perceived by humans and so can never amount to objective proof of the universe from first principles, and that's fine and correct.

the point is that empirical knowledge suffices for life, whereas philosophical knowledge is useless for all purposes. it does not allow us to make better decisions in the day-to-day and does not provide the objective proofs that empirical knowledge cannot provide us. it's just a bunch of fucking losers soaking up taxpayer money in bullshit faculties.

Plato is still super relevant. Even Frege is just Platonism applied to language.

Until humans live harmoniously, with a satisfying occupation to fill time, and recognise the cultivation of virtue as the highest purpose of life, philosophy isn’t done.

see

Philosophy can be either empirical or theoretical. Science is just a subset of empirical philosophy. Before you can objectively measure something, you need to know what the fuck it is that you are even measuring. This is where theoretical philosophy comes in and why your point makes no fucking sense. Someone didn't just decide to start observing atoms and molecules. We had to theorize those systems long before we could ever conceive of measuring or observing them.

Your argument makes no fucking sense. It's the equivalent of asking why we hire carpenters to help build homes if we only see the drywall when it's finished.

>>Your argument makes no fucking sense
I'm not the fucking retard claiming that you can't tell the difference between a stick and a rock until the wise philosopher kings descend from their tenured chairs to explain it to us.

Jesus fuck, I hate academics so much.

>substance of the argument
>"wah semantics"
how do you expect me to know what your substance is if we dont get clear on your definitions? if youre one of those guys chirping on axioms and what not earlier in the thread, you should be fair sport with this.

>empirical knowledge is still perceived by humans
wtf does this even mean

>objective proof
who said anything about proof? just trying to sort out your epistemology before we go around playing with contingencies. i dont give a shit about proof you Veeky Forums minded faggot. also no its not fine and its not correct a nigga named saul kripke fixed this shit for retards like you along time ago but im guessing you didnt know that because YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHO FUCKING DAVID HUME IS AND YET YOU KEEP SHILLING THIS 18TH CENTURY EMPIRICIST HORSESHIT

>suffices for life
thats a strong argument. gonna explain to me how you jumped to a universal like that? idk i get pretty wigged out about uncertainty myself. as do alot of people, you know, like physicists and such

>philosophical knowledge is useless
>use
CALM DOWN THERE MR. VALUE-THEORIST I THOUGHT YOU SAID PHILOSOPHY WAS DUMB

>does not allow us to make better decisions
again, speak for yourself. I, for one, have been deeply enriched by my study of all branches of philosophy (except for, ironically, value theory). Maybe you just suck at it hence why it isnt helpful/useful/whatever other bullshitty word you want to throw in here for you

Philosophy is not useless it's just that retards here can't argue or make a point to save their lives but pretend they're intellectuals and not drooling halfwits with delusions of grandeur.

>academics
okay see here is your real bent. you dont like academics. welcome to the fucking club mate. but perks of membership do not include throwing out the actual practice lol what are you a rock.

Yes, but, on the one hand, it would be forever impossible to know that the laws that govern reality inhere in reality itself, since to know this with certitude, one would have to somehow understand physical reality without recourse to perception, which is impossible. On the other hand, if we consider space and time not as things in themselves, but as forms of perception which necessarily exist in the mind prior to experience, and underlie this experience, there is no trouble in understanding how the "laws of reality" apply to that which is external to the subject. In other words, it is impossible to conceive of the discovery of space in experience without space being already present in the mind, since in order to form a conception of a particular space, the idea of space must already be present in the mind. This is clear if we take the converse case; if space is an empirical idea, which must be discovered through perception, this would mean that perception would exist in spite of an absence of space,- but this is impossible, since objects can only be perceived in space. Therefore the idea of space, which is the most fundamental form that applies to objects (things in "reality") of perception and intuition, must exist a priori in the mind.

I AM SUMMONED

You still don't get it, do you? At some point, ALL SCIENCE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY. I'm not saying philosophers have to approve of things being researched, I am saying that in order for science to have existed, it had to have started off as philosophy on some specific subject, meaning that all of these subjects that you think are worthless and pointless like metaphysics and ethics are merely sciences in their infantile stages and maybe, if we keep pursuing this with the help of the rise of other empirical knowledge, we will be able to objectively measure these subjects. And without theoretical philosophy backing up this empirical philosophy, we'd be getting fucking nowhere. Ever hear of the goddamn nuclear bomb? That was a project spearheaded by THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS. THEORY.

Ethics and metaphysics are not something to be measured or enforced by axioms you utter cretin.

>I have strong doubts as to the effectiveness of this methodology. I feel the same criteria can be used to approve of pseudoscience or fake historical theories. Just imagine, for example, if people used that methodology to try to figure out why the sky is blue.

It's great that you have strong doubts, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a pretty strong demarcation between philosophy and science, and that both philosophers and scientists recognize this demarcation. There is, of course, plenty of room for shared concerns. Are you really trying to argue that asking what ontology is motivated by our best physical theories is a meaningless question?

>At some point
dont give him that much. he's obviously out of his league and trying to cover it up with "muh academics" bullshit. watch him make recourse to this strain of argument starting v soon.

Not yet anyway >:^)

OUT OF MY WAY YOU UTTER FAGGOT

Yeah, I have no idea how the academia hate has any relevance whatsoever to this argument either.

Oh fugg

Why don't you read him pass the tractatus, user? :)

because my name is dave

>I am saying that in order for science to have existed, it had to have started off as philosophy on some specific subject
Only systemically.

>THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS
I'm sure they'd be flattered to be compared to philosophers. Scientists love it when people tell them that a bunch of old fucks trading opinions all day are just as valuable as the work they do fucking curing diseases and building weapons to keep us safe.

This bitch ass nigga ain't shet

Yeah you're not directly addressing any of my points so have fun just wringing your hands over an imaginary enemy there friendo

Weak rebuttal.

>"anything you say which is clearly just your own opinion i will perceive as intended to be a universal statement"
Please stop doing this.

>who said anything about proof?
If you can't prove it why should I care about it?

I've said this several times already: I don't think the majority of philosophy lets us live better lives. I have never read it, but does the Critique of Pure Reason help us reach virtue? What does it do for us?
Scratch that. Can somebody just outline why they believe 1) philosophy provides us with nontrivial non-imaginary knowledge and 2) progress exists in philosophy?

>curing diseases
>building weapons
is this really the kind of rhetoric youre left with after having been outted as a faggot?

...

You have no point. You just said that at one point we didn't understand how best to get empirical knowledge and a lot of people spent time figuring it out.

Okay. I agree that this happened.

Your point?

>outted
Your spelling is fuckted.

My point is that it's still happening and the philosophies you consider worthless can and will one day develop into a science.

They won't. He's still a major cocksuck tho.

>My point is that it's still happening
No it isn't.

I wish it was, but it isn't.

Philosophers nowadays are more concerned with which meme ideology is memeiest and retarded shit like the trolley problem. They've abandoned trying to find better tools, and are just focusing on yelling at each other using the tools that they've got.

Until philosophers can justify their field there is literally no point in debating the trolley problem, or capitalism vs communism, or fucking anything, because it is and will remain a bunch of fucking opinions.

I once rolled a joint from a page of Plato's Dialogues so consider yourself probably rebutted bucko