Consider: Philosophy is bullshit

*teleports behind you and slashes you with my katana before you do*

nice try kid

Nah it is not entirely bullshit. But it makes no sense that "philosophers" are worth more as "ideas". Philosophers should've stayed anonymous like on here so we can value their ideas not themselves as a person.

Summary of your argument.

>only empirical sciences are valuable
>philosophy is not an empirical science
>therefore philosophy is not valuable.

Your argument is valid, congratulations. But valid is not the same as true (we have to thank philosophy for that distinction by the way). You have not proved at all your first premise, you just give the old philosophical description of sciences changing paradigm (which was described first by Kuhn, a philosopher of science).

The rest is just the typical worthless rant about "science is true cause it gave us computers"

I rarely hear anybody go "I agree with x philosopher because I really like his beard."

Would you extend your reason to science? Let's just not credit people with their findings. Who needs citations anyway?

>it's another positivist thread
kys

Humanities need to be extinct. They're a waste of time, money and resources. Not only are they completely worthless, they're also a cancer to society.

Gender theory, feminazism, SJWism and wouldn't be a thing if humanity students and professors were sent to gas chambers where they belong.

This. People shouldn't be allowed to think.

What you're doing right here is called philosophy. In other words, OP, you have no value to the world, like the faggot you are.

Engineers and doctors are far better critical thinkers than zombie hordes of SJWs.

>Philosophers should've stayed anonymous like on here so we can value their ideas not themselves as a person.
Some people hold the philosophy that you can't fully understand the idea without also considering the mind that it grows from, or that the mind holds valuable information about the merits of the idea.

>muh feels
>think
Nice bait you cock sucker

I think it is fine to call me out, as it wasn't the greatest analogy. But you did it badly.
My issue is that the study of philosophy insist on reading works of certain philosophers instead of incorporating them together.

When I read about evolution surely a few famous scientists will be mentioned, say Darwin, Gould and Dawkins (and a lot more that I don't know of). But everything is incorporated into one.

Maybe it only seems so because I am not studying philosophy. But when I looked up the study of philosophy, you are required to learn specific languages so you can read the original works.

I am not a STEMlord who thinks philosophy is worthless, I actually had interest studying it.
I've read several articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

But I'm put off by the ancestor worshipping that plagues the field.

Metaphysical philosophy, the majority, is worthless nonsense that led up to later post enlightenment thought such a metaphysics being nonsense and your sentiments

No one actually believes in form theory, its only studied from a historical perspective

Hey OP. Have you ever had a political discussion with a friend? Have you ever debated religion online, perhaps? Have you ever pointed out what you see as being a societal issue?

Congratulations! You have just entered into philosophy. This is why people who study politics are called "political philosophers", and why people who study Christianity are called "Christian philosophers", and why people who study the issues of society are called "moral philosophers". Even what you espouse here is a philosophy. It's called "empiricism".

Just trying to help you out :)

>No one actually believes in form theory
And yet all philosophical systems which deem there is a single Truth to obtain knowledge of have its fundamental notion at their roots.

No one believes in form theory, but people believe in a theory of mind, which is a direct descendant of that line of thinking. Much of old philosophy has died out and been replaced with "science" now. Psychology formed out of old philosophies about the nature of knowledge and being/truth. It's just that people like Socrates and his students knew very little of the brain, so they couldn't really put two and two together.

I just don't understand why anybody would study philosophy. Especially if you live in the US where studying is costly. If you are interested in it, why would you bother going through the tedium of boring classes, lectures, tests and papers when all you need to do is pick up a fucking book and study it by yourself. It's not like the philosophy degree you get eventually is worth anything. I guess enrolling is good if you want to meet people who share your interests and form a circlejerk with them.

Fucking utilitarian sheeple, using philosophy to criticize philosophy without even realizing it.

Poor boy

Nice one

>poor
You actually think that posting a self-portrait in a malaysian wood carving boards amounts to an argument.

Enrich us with your wealth of arguments or shut your cum deposit.

I did not criticize philosophy itself actually.

What about people interested in teaching, or writing for the entertainment industry? The latter might want to study it as a minor then.

This, I understand that value itself is something that philosophy deals with, but every sort of question related as to why someone should study philosophy gets "hahha muh utilitarianism". I have read many philosophers and had commented with professors and I think science still has gotten me a more concrete solution to many problems.

>he views the university as a mere content provider

Let me guess, you think everyone should attend "trade schools," too?

I certainly agree that most people should not go to a university and major in philosophy. But then, most people probably don't need to attend university at all; and the universities they do attend are barely worthy of the name. In the U.S. at least, most colleges are essentially credentialing services. You're just there to show future employers that you have some motivation and work ethic. The content of what you learn will likely be irrelevant for your job; your job could probably be performed by a high school graduate, but you need a college degree to compete. But you still shouldn't study philosophy, because in these sort of colleges, the humanities typically lack rigor, and everyone knows it.

But, if you actually attend a decent school, the principal value to be obtained is neither learning content, nor mere credentialing (although there certainly still is a significant value to the credentials). It's assumed that you're capable of absorbing content on your own. So instead, you're there to develop transubstantive skills, like critical thinking and writing. You also form connections with experts in the field, and your peers who will one day obtain that mantle. Neither of these things are available from some online code academy. But unless you are already interested in a specialized field, particularly medicine or engineering, there's no real detriment to studying philosophy as opposed to something else. This sort of education is not about job training for most people; and insofar as it helps you obtain a job, it's generally not the content you learn that matters anyway.

So basically, dont study philosophy or the humanities unless you attend an elite school; but this says more about the state of education than it does about philosophy or the humanities.

When the result of their thoughts is a cancer upon the entire fabric of society, then you are correct. They shouldn't. Reserve the pondering of important matters to people who aren't complete fucking idiots and leave the ponderings of "what should I have for breakfast today" to the rest.

Your post applies more to grad school though.

>There is no value to philosophy.
he philosophized at length, ignoring the fields of ethics

>substantive flaw in the body of computer science knowledge
Computer science as a practice has tons of flaws that mainly have to do with localization, internationalization, creating agreeable bodies of standards, disseminating information, and keeping corrupt officials from controlling computer science education.

These are all philosophical issues of ethics, economics, culture, politics, axiology, epistemology, logic etc.

Anything about which we have to make decisions before all the information is in, out of necessity, and due to the pace at which things move faster than we can study them, falls under the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.

Philosophy is not useless. We could for instance use physics to derive all sorts of information that is hard to argue with, but the real philosophical issue isn't whether that info is true, but what to do with it. The knowledge of modern physics, for instance has been utilized at various points to make weapons. Whether we should have done that or not was and is an important, not *useless* philosophical issue.

t. poo poo head

>Your argument is valid, congratulations

*ahem* philosophy, as a huge category, no, is not empirical science, but empirical science is a philosophy.

Moreover it is proof that philosophy can be useful, unlike what OP said.

But most people who study philosophy as a major don't know jack shit about math, physics ir CopSci

Are you aware of the difference between validity and truth?

That is because philosophy curricula hasn't caught up with modern industry, NOT because philosophy is useless.

Isn't philosophy subjective like a movie or book?

t. STEM undergrad who knows very little about philosophy

yes but that doesn't make it useless

Not entirely, What does one make of a philosophy, for instance, whose only rule is "Be objective."

Sure the conclusion that one should be objective might be subjective, but the content of the philosophy itself leans towards objectivity.

Then for the time it is pretty useless?

Locke, Smith, Marx and arguably all the main existentialist philosophers changed the world and , have almost on a subversive level, crafted how the average man views life and the values he holds. The world does move with purpose even if it may be all a lie.

They didn't change the world, the ideas were present already they just did a tremendous job in formalizing them and creating an academic study of them.

What's your point? That ideas are built off of other ideas? That doesn't change the impact that a unique perspective like Marx has had on the world.

Yes, but the motors of change are the ideas in practice, not the people who formalize it.

Perspectives can be compared and refined. This is what the scientific approach is, a (philosophically) refined perspective that is useful to us.

Academically majoring in philosophy is arguably useless.
Philosophizing and making philosophical decisions, i.e. performing philosophy is not only useful, it's inevitable.

By the way it's also because people who study philosophy as a major aren't majoring in math, physics, or CompSci.

After all, would you expect those majors to know anything about philosophy?

Yes, but he was claiming how useful philosophy can be when applied to compsci and the like
Well yes, but I think everyone is discussing the former.

>not the people who formalize it.
But somebody has to formalize the idea before anyone can mobilize that idea into action, and the people who are good at mobilizing are not necessarily the guys who are good at formalizing

>I just don't understand why anybody would study philosophy.
To become smarter. Also, people who enjoy a good game (i.e. men) are attracted to it, since it's the ultimate intellectual game to play.

Then how did shit happen before academia was even a thing?

That is pretty bold statement only philosophers claim, though you could argue the same about math.

No.

sciences are philosophy. kill yourself, retard.

>I'm an idiot, so philosophy sucks.

at an extremely sluggish rate, often requiring violent upheavals in order to force societal change at the point of a sword.

Philosophy has more men surrounding it than math does.

tl;dr

But is that necessarily related to the number of academics studying economy, social relations etc? Consider a world were Marx was never born, does that mean communist regímenes would have never existed?
You sound drunk.

>You sound drunk.
You sound ignorant.

Protip: scrawny math nerds ain't men.

The irony of modern "intellectuals" is how uneducated they are about literally the oldest, hardest and overall manliest academic field.

Sitting in your room all day doing calculations and studying purely abstract objects that do not actually exist such as zeroes and negatives isn't manly and rarely attracts men with power such as warlords and dictators. Philosophy does, however, and continues to be a field that calls to aggressive action more often than math does. And I know you're talking about math, because you said the oldest and math predates philosophy.

Also,
>math
>harder

What a joke. There are thousands of guys who are excellent at math working on wall street, at NASA, various other labs across the globe. There are literally only a handful of people at any given time who are truly able to philosophize, and that's being generous.

I'd only agree or at least find it reasonable to assert that math was manlier if you believed that terrible theory that autism is a form of hypermasculinity, because math indeed requires more autism than philosophy does.

Do we then discuss the former in preparation of the inevitable latter?

What distinction are you making between being truly able to philosophize and not being able to philosophize? Where do you draw the line?

Because that sounds like a philosophical issue, but you yourself are unlikely to be one of your alleged "true philosophers".

Again, I don't need to prove anything about the state of modern intellectuals because you make a darn good job showing your lack of knowledge of the field and your overall insecurity.

>What distinction are you making between being truly able to philosophize and not being able to philosophize? Where do you draw the line?
A person who writes genuine, good philosophy (i.e. something extensive which expands on the philosophical tradition, that isn't a half-assed regurgitation of what others have already said) is someone who can truly philosophize. If you narrow it down to people who can do this, it is an extremely rare form of genius in the world that is completely reliant on INSIGHT, something dependent on extremely balanced circumstance and opportunity.

Math on the other hand, can be learned by going to school and studying very hard by quite a few people. Not everyone is a genius mathematician that revolutionizes the field, but there are many who are exceptionally good at it. Of course we can also just limit it to those revolutionary geniuses for math too, but even then, I feel like there are more who are just good at math than there are people who can read and understand philosophy but who don't truly philosophize themselves.

What? That every single thought is in some way philosophy? Reductionist shit.

Wow nigger, you are clueless

Not an argument.

ibid.

It's a value judgement of the worth of certain kinds of philosophy. To do so means having to make an appraisal of what kinds of philosophy are good, and what are bad. And to do so with any merit would mean that a person needs to be well versed in the subject material, much of which is reactionary or cumulative in asking the same questions: What kind of philosophy are useful, worthwhile, true, real, etc...

So yeah, it's a philosophical question. But by his statement, it's one that very few people understand in creative terms and answer. Otherwise, you can parrot. But who do you parrot? The answer to this question will change depending on who.you are parroting. So it doesn't sound like you would be right by your standards, that there is a "true" form of philosophy, even available for paraphrase.

This Ibid guy sure wrote a lot of papers

>only empirical sciences are valuable
he didn't mention any empirical science, just math and compsci

Fundamental the problem with philosophy is there are no answers in it. Yes, I get that that's kinda the point of it, but ponderous musings don't really help, and most people appreciate empirical evidence far more than answer-less questions.

"Gender theory, feminazism, SJWism"
#1 is a valid area of study, the last two are fucking anti-intellectual memes. Yes, we get it, you're not a minority or a woman so you don't care about social justice. However, there are people out there who weren't abused in the same way that you were as a child that actually care about others.

SJWs are a fucking meme, don't sit here and lie. Remember that every Tumblr asshole would be just as annoying coming from your side of the story.

>when all you need to do is pick up a fucking book and study it by yourself.

This is true of any topic known to man you fucking moron.

>Yes, we get it, you're not a minority or a woman so you don't care about social justice.

Many women and minority members don't care about that either.

I'd challenge you to find me an Asian doctor in the United States that makes a six-figure income, being a SJW psycho.

Not all minorities care about social justice, not all women care about social justice, these things are obvious. But a great deal do, particularly minorities that get treated like shit. Even if minorities on the whole didn't care, they'd still need help. Social Justice is the only way since the Left doesn't exist right now and the right hates helping people.

No one is the fucking stereotypical SJW you have in your head because all it is a fear-mongering meme. If anyone's the psycho...

you realize analytic philosophy won, right?

This post is bait, and I'm not going to reply.

>Social Justice is the only way since the Left doesn't exist right now and the right hates helping people.

Why does Social Justice have to be a 'left' thing? The argument for LGBT rights is, at it's core, an argument for liberty.

lack of thought and research concealed by brute length and "reasonable" tone of writing. "Philosophy is wrong" is an impossible position since for a question such as "is the mind made of an immaterial substance" the answer must be either yes or no and both of these are positions taken by different philosophers. one of the two positions have to be right.

no, also see above.

And liberty is a socially left idea. The entire right is socially anti-liberty in many ways, with many different justifications. In fact, I'm almost positive that one of the main distinguishing factors of the social left and the social right is that the social right is against liberal, socially left ideas.

How is it bait? Are you saying that because it hits too close to home? Did you get assblasted because I called you out for being an irrational faggot crying about imaginary "SJW" boogeymen? Get lost.

>In fact, I'm almost positive that one of the main distinguishing factors of the social left and the social right is that the social right is against liberal, socially left ideas.

Go on, I would like to see an example.

the right wing is defined as "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."

wikipedia says it to be
"Right-wing politics hold that some forms of social stratification or social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition."

the left wing is defined as "the liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system."

wikipedia says it to be "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished."

two definitions of liberty "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

"the power or scope to act as one pleases."

Wikipedia defines liberty as "Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.[3] Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. "

in particular, pay close attention to the following string:
"liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints"
of which we find many in every single right-wing group, save for (in terms of social policies) libertarians.

No, because you said "even if they didn't care, they'd still need help." and "the right hates helping people."

It's pretty clear that you're a baitmaster, or you're a 19 year old woman/hipster who has just taken his or her first introductory course in Sociology at university, and you think you're the superman that will save the poor minority from the evil capitalist patriarchy.

>liberty is a socially left idea

Wrong. So, so wrong. Jesus. People, never believe anything you read on Veeky Forums.

Are you trying to argue that minorities don't have worse outcomes, and that these worse outcomes are not at least in part due to (please don't sperg out, I'm trying really hard no to lose my shit) oppression in some way by the ruling class?

And as I demonstrated above, the social right is anti-liberty, which is literally anti-helping people.

Do you want to help people? Then your policies are either socially liberal or you're one of those deluded "Strength through unity! Ban x because it's degenerate! XD" fucks that has no idea what helping people means. If you don't want to help people, you're just some right-winger.

Read my post above. Your feelings on a topic don't fucking matter when there are accepted definitions for words.

>"Right-wing politics hold that some forms of social stratification or social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3]

Isn't this just Privlege/Patriarchy Theory?

>"Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4]

SJWism is all about social inequality.

>"liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints"

But it's only the Left that get's to define what arbitrary restraints are.

I guess it comes down to what is deemed Right and Left. If right and left both view liberty differently (which they do) then it makes sense that both would want liberty.

But you have merged 'helping people' with 'left wing'. You don't think that the Right wants to help people?

Note: For the most part when I say "right" I mean social right, not the economic right.

Can you not just pick and choose what you can argue for? Did you read the two liberty definitions? Arbitrary restrains makes a whole lot of sense in the context of "the power or scope to act as one pleases." For example, making most drugs illegal certainly gets in the way of one's liberty, and yet, it's a standard for right-wing ideologies. Yes, you might feel like your banning of drugs brings liberty... But by definition, it restricts liberties.
Same with LGBT rights. A centerpiece for the right-wing is being anti whatever is considered ""deviant"" at the time. Once again infringing on one's liberty.

We have definitions for a reason.

They wouldn't choose the policies they do if they had the best interests of people in mind. Restricting the liberties that the right does makes lives significantly harder for the people who that affects.
But that's not all: We see other places with policies that do work, but the right chooses to ignore those. They would adopt the ideas that work if they truly cared about the well being of people.

>They wouldn't choose the policies they do if they had the best interests of people in mind.

lyl. Like what?