Why did philosophy separate itself from science?

Isn't that just straw-man feminism

I mean I think feminism is more than just "all men are evil and should bow to women"

All of feminisim is a strawman.

It just seems board

The most moderate definition is "philosophy about gender equality" which if you allow half of the population to not have a chance to strive that's even worse to the goal of pursuit of knowledge isn't it?

I think you mean strawperson, shitlord.

because philosophy is beyond science, science is a limited way to inquire information, philosophy asks what science can't.

Gender equality goes against nature. Most women do not deserve equality because they don't even want it. They are immature, mentally operating on the level of children, and want to live an irresponsible, parasitic lifestyle. Only those few women who exhibit enough male traits to be responsible adults deserve equality.

>[citation needed]

Otto Weininger - "Sex and Character", 1903

And what about all parasitic, hedonistic, modern beta male who infest this damn world as big majority? At end they are all shit.

They wouldn't exist in the first place, if society wasn't poisoned by vagina-centered brainwashing.

obviously they have too many female traits that lowers their virtue

we used to have philosopher-scientists, but there are very few scientists these days that also philosophize

have you never met a woman before or something?

anecdotal evidence doesn't really count

What if I claim that all the females in my life were the complete opposite of what just said? Can you disprove?

>all the females in my life
Every statement is true for the empty set.

>[citation needed]

...

>STEM: Get federal grant money, develop new technologies or improve upon old ones, write peer-reviewed papers that influence the advancement of society
>Philosophy: Get a liberal arts degree, put out a self-help rag, make a profit for a year or so, get shit on by the next big "philosopher", work at McDonald's
Follow the money.

S-shut up

>modern
precisely. they are a symptom of feminism, not a separate phenomenon.

even then, most beta males are the grease that gets ground into the gears of modern society in order to keep it moving. someone has to do all the dirty work behind the scenes after all.

>Philosophers of the past used to be almost polymaths, educated in science, math and the humanities.
this is because of the change in the structure and professionalization of the sciences, which has progressed at several different stages. The latest of which is when scientists, who previously were educated in the humanities and philosophy, became completely ignorant of them after WWII. For proof of this, refer to the popular scientists or pop-scientists (Hawking, Feynman, Sagan) and their basic-bitch pitiful understanding of science and the arts, or spend 10 minutes in a Western STEM university department.

For the most part this is because contemporary science is so fine and detailed that to actually understand it in any capacity you have to have a phd and commit yourself entirely to it. This is why you don't have philosophers who are also scientists. This in itself is neither good or bad and perhaps is even a requirement of contemporary science advancing as it does: cf to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and how scientists act during "normal science." It does have many negative consequences however, but science, when it is functioning as it is meant to, inherently alienates non-professionals. It as little the philosopher's as the grocer's as the geologist's fault for not knowing much about theoretical physics. That is because even different scientists in different sub-fields are lay-men to each other.

If you mean "a general interest in what scientists have been up to" then its up to you to furnish proof of what that is and were it is lacking.

The anti-scientific strand of philosophy (here you fail to even distinguish which "philosophers" these are, since even contemporary continental philosophers are now paying lip-service to "science") is an entirely different matter.

The rest of your post is pure polemic ideological bullshit.

>*understanding of philosophy and the arts

By your sentence alone, It becomes clear you dont know what 'real philosophy' is, unless you mean to say it in the most abstract and useless means of representing an impression imaginable.

You conceptualize like an ancient Greek from the platonic dialogs, and I dont mean Aristotle. . .

You don't know much about how most careers go, Most people in the Sciences go off and barely get any further than being a glorified lab rat. Most people who get philosophy degrees go on to work medicore mid-tier management positions in business.

Very few people who get either degree do anything significant. You also don't know anything about Philosophy if you think that self help books have ANYTHING to do with the academic discipline.

savage

Science is by definition philosophy.

Philosphy is useful only when it is applied.

It's a good median to educate yourself on concepts, but to nominalize those concepts into a matter of 'fact', is to disregard the intention of ever knowing the 'truth' in the first place.

Philosophy then must expose what it is in what it does. It is a process after all, when done; that of philosophizing.

So, then, It must be clear that philosophy has more to do with the structural and conceptual nature of our ability to consider the questions, more than the questions themselves. In such, logic and analysis become key, and pragmatism becomes purpose.

For what purpose do you seek to know the meaning of 'love', 'virtue', ect. . .

Well, it's hopefully to know how to apply such concept to some other concepts, in the concept-chain that manifests our logic-space, which is product of our language and mental capacities, which arise with forms and functions, ect. . . .

Science is concerned with answers to carefully structured questions. Answers which are never accepted as 'truth', but instead, when more often observed or validated, prevailing theory. It's obsessed with the process of obtaining the information, as 'science' is systematic approach of conducting 'research' and observation.

IN this, science became separate from philosophy when the formula for science existed as only systemic observational approaches following a set of organized methods. Philosophy is not a set of organized methods, it's a means of untangling or making sense of the methods we use, and apply to makes sense of our conditions and ourselves on a phenomenal level. You cant test the phenomenal experiences, with scientific processes, as you can only test the material interactions of previous existence in time, with scientific enterprise.

When the only other smart people joined in.
The autists died off less and less as we progressed, and them being the most geared towards science
>can't think
>can't be social
>prefer numbers to conversation
>don't like to be uncomfortable
Basically philosophers used to be the only smart people, then the autists edged them out till they themselves became philosophers.
We've degenerate ever since.
I think you know what needs to be done.

>I think you know what needs to be done.
either singularity, or stop giving vaccinations

b8 thread i guess
>philosophy
>The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline
>Middle English: from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia 'love of wisdom'

>Ph.D. or DPhil.[4] It is also called a Doctorate of Philosophy, from the Latin Doctor Philosophiae (for DPhil) or Philosophiae Doctor (for PhD or Ph.D.).

Philosophy is the old terminology, as much as I gather, basically is a catch all word for critical examination of the world. But post Greeks with a particular emphasis on logical elimination and rational discourse.

Over time people that specialized in a certain area such as the study of how chemicals interacted with each other would give themselves specialist names to indicate their specialized area of study like Alchemist or Chemist. Thus it is more that "philosophers" stopped calling themselves by the generic title as they specialized in what we would now call "science". The same way a sculptor is both a sculptor and an "artist". What we understand you to mean when you say "philosophy" is a grab bag of inquiry that is left over after we've cut everything that falls under the new title of "science" with a formalized empirical method and mathematics. There are of course still specializations in the umbrella of left over "philosophy" like Epistemology, but they can't easily be fit into the formalized structure of the scientific method and so get put in a group with other areas of inquiry that have similar problems.

Just because shit like epistemology is hard to definitively verify one way or the other doesn't mean it's not worth studying and understanding.

Salty

Additionally, however, it is not science's essence to tend towards ignorance of philosophy (and least of which, philosophy's to tend towards ignorance of science). Though the specialization of science is inevitable if we are to have science, the professionalization of science and all of the western academia is not. By that I mean the system of departments in public research universities which feeds funding towards sciences and technologies that are "practical" at the expense of disciplines and approaches which are "impractical," thus generating the interests and values of its participants. Practical to whom? Ask where that funding comes from. Long story short is military-industrial-corporate complex.

I'm still on the fence that """""""""modern feminism"""""""" is inherently bad. By """"""""feminizing""""""" men, it weeds out weak beta males who can't fake it by thumping their chests and rely on their actual merits(ability to acquire wealth and status). Though I'm super biased against weak betas, I admit. I don't want them polluting the gene pool.

>Long story short is military-industrial-corporate complex.
I chortled.

To bring something to your argument I would suggest there is a devaluation of the use of being widely read so that people are easier to control. While a scientist or a carpenter or a teacher should be specialised to their area of expertise, they are not going to be spending every waking moment involved in their profession. They have free time, as did those before us. Also, a scientist one hundred years ago wasn't necessarily a worse scientist than one today, and in many cases was making more intuitively scientific leaps without so great a wealth of knowledge as we have now. I think definitely it is beneficial to have scientists be less interested in philosophy and more interested in tv shows and crap like the majority of people are nowadays. The question, as always, is who is it beneficial to?

Second

Science is a tool of philosophy to be picked up or discarded as necessary.

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

Nice pasta

>philosopher presents idea
>if the idea is accepted then many philosophers start talking about it and debating it
>if that goes on long enough all the works that focus on that idea are generally lumped together to make discussion and research easier
>schools see a need to add this idea to their course of study
>students like learning about this idea
>soon so much is written about this subject that they have to make it its own separate field since so many people seem to focus on this one idea.
>a new idea suddenly emerges in that field
>the papers start to mount
>a new sub field is then opened up
>repeat ad infinitum

conceptually, knowledge isn't discovered or created, it evolves and branches off.
we have to delineate types of knowledge so we can grasp it easier.
unfortunatly the human limitations one must now specialize in a few things instead of being a well rounded human because it would simply take too much time to go over the entire canon of human knowledge and experience. Even just the footnotes would be too much.

Philosophers seem to be pretty oblivious of most of the important results in science.

>i'll stalk pop science authors that do unscripted unrehearsed public talks twice a week for a few decades so i can cherry pick a few bad quotes

You sure showed everyone whos boss.

>philosophers of today
you mean linguists who've essentially fallen to the levels of sophists

Best not procreate then, buddy.

The very word "feminism" implies it is about the furtherance of women, and that men do not suffer from specific forms of discrimination. The idea of equality is very slippery slopey anyway, once you've decided women need to have the same roles that men have (which they shouldn't and never will, but not even pausing to examine that) then you start to have unrealistic expectations about all groups who fit into your arbitrarily defined categories. And then you fucking end up trivializing and marginalizing others in your twisted pursuit of "equality" for your favored group. It's really a stupid, dangerous line of thinking and I hope one day they teach children how to recognize it in elementary schools.

the anglosphere doesn't have any philosophers, only "philosophers"

Because Descartes is the endgame of philosophy. He's the last philosopher who actually did something useful, ie found rationalism, the philosophical basis for modern scientific thinking. All of philosophy since then has been nothing but pointless circlejerking.

I think the issue here is that people can see and can relate and can use the results that is deemed beneficial through science such as space exploration, medical related advancement such as MRI, antibiotics, transportation, etc. The advancement in said field increase the quality of life in a very observable ways that philosophy lack. So much more people will think that funding scientific research will be more beneficial.

Not an argument. Perhaps you should read some real philosophy and learn how to construct a meaningful reply.

Computers

>he can't into computational philosophy

How can philosophy be real if our eyes aren't real?

Yes, but that came from humanities departments in the US that were heavily influenced by postmodernists in Europe like Foucault and Derrida; Judith Butler is basically Foucault, if he had focused overwhelmingly on gender.

>Why did philosophy separate itself from science?

It never did. Both science and philosophy is based on reason.

The idea that they are somehow separated is a bullshit meme.

well, science relies on hard facts that once proved destroy all other theories and thesis whereas in humanities "100 people can have 100 different arguments and they can all be right and they can all be wrong"

so the scientific world is an harsh world where only the fittest survive, while in the world of philosophy any retard can survive (empirically proved by this post)

>Most women tend to be less physically capable than men, therefore the few weak men should have more rights than the few strong women

>Heisenburg
>liking Plato

Sure is bad taste in here.

>philosophy can mess you up

After seeing some of the philosophers I've been taught by I'd say, yeah. It can.

>Why did philosophy separate itself from science?
It never did.

Most Philosophers know jack shit about science.

Wrong.
Most philosophers, at least in America, can't stop wacking off to science.

That doesn't mean they have the required knowledge to actually have a concrete opinion on modern subjects.

Not true. And in any case, "most" is a meaningless word here. The point is that philosophy never separated from science, and only someone who lacks a basic understanding of both subjects would think otherwise.
But if you have any actual proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it. And before you try, your opinions are not proof.

Say that to:
Russel
Frege
Moore
Whitehead
Ayer
Popper
Dennett
Grayling
Chomsky
Pinker
Putnam
Singer
Searle
and Wittgenstein

You charlatan.

>Modern contemporary philosophers on the other hand are mostly pseudo-intellectuals who want to feel deep over holding opinions while not producing anything substantial or new.

So how many sleepless nights did you spend on Reddit?

1) there is a lot more to know today, thousands or even millions of times more. Nobody, not even someone who dedicates his life to study can know a significant fraction of all there is to know.
2)modern philosophers are as productive and effecient as past ones.

Philosophy's aim is to conceptualize and reconceptualize the world.
To invent new concepts and new meaning to allow everyone else to move forward and find solutions to new problems.
Scientists themselves all have meyaphysical and philosophical and cultural preconceptions which at some point prevent them from finding the right ideas and attitudes that are nessecarily to solv eproblems.
Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, recently, psychology and linguistics and computer science.
It is the broadest from of inquiry of which the natural sciences are but an offshoot.

Please stop being a moron and taking Veeky Forums and meme scientists seriously.

Okay you stupid fuck. Obviously someone who is a logician or studies particularly the philosophy of science need to be scientifically literate. But those people generally come from a background of scientific learning and have have taken the necessary subjects to even start to question the ideas exposed in science.

I could expose you to fashionable nonsense but you are just going to say
>muh sokal
And avoid the issue that there are clear charlatans who fail to use properly math and science and that scientific literacy is reserved to people who are willing to carry through a PhD of the subject.

...

>all this special pleading

>fashionable nonsense
I own the book you assuming moron. And its cute how you think Lacan is representative of "most philosophers"

You didn't read the book did you?

I did read it. My point was that I could give you examples of people acting like this like you gave the names of well known logicians and philosophers of science, the point is still moot.

>philosophers don't know about science
>give philosophers who do know about science
>those are just logicians and philosophers of science MUH LACAN BOOGY is representative of "most"

Leave.

My point was that I could also give you examples of philosophers that know jack shit about science and are considered important on the development of the field. Your examples are as good as my examples in the sense that I could also yell
>muh popper boogy

>Dennett
>Singer
You better be joking. They are creationist tier anti-scientific.

>2)modern philosophers are as productive and effecient as past ones.
Why are you lying?

Philosophers used to be able to take on many academic roles because there wasn't nearly as much to take on in the first place.

Being a polymath thousands of years ago takes nowhere near the amount of sheer information required to be a polymath today, let alone having to relate it all. It's much more feasible to specialize today not only because of monetary concerns but just the exponentially larger amount of knowledge out there today

>implying deleuze is not one of the greatest philsophers in human history.

Wake up son.

They are, they make radical changes, effecting many different fields.

This. Deleuze's radical readings of other philsophers and his own writings have deeply ifluenced many different fields.

Literally who?

What's anti-scientific about Dennett?

He denies a whole field of neuroscience. According to him everyone who wants to research the hard problem of consciousness must be a dualist.

>trying to argue for the merit of Deleuze when people itt only know of philosophy by way of regurgitated post-colonial lacanian comp-lit or Sokal wikipedia articles

don't even bother boys

>I am not aware of one of the most influenctual post modern philsophers

So why do you pretend to have an oppinion?

That's not anti-scientific, and he has sound reasons for doing so.

Who made that comic? They're a real fucking moron.

If he has "sound reaons", I'd love to see them. Unfortunately in his books he never does so.

>That's not anti-scientific
It's to neuroscience what creationism is to evolutionary biology. Outright denial is the most anti-scientific thing one can do.

Lacan's ideas are not productive when it comes to actually treating patients but the very pretense of applying his ideas to how people think and act is immensly interesting.

I think it was made by some troll on Veeky Forums.

For example, the way zizek applies lacanian ideas to society.

youtube.com/watch?v=LuG8ElyirC0

The fact there is no hard problem of consciousness, and that it was just created by Chalmers to justify make believe?

The question how subjective experience arises from physical processes in the brain requires a neuroscientific answer. Denial is not an answer.

And it will acquire an answer, as a process of explaining the other facets of consciousness, none of which is an "easy problem" as Chalmer's suggests. The idea that there's some sort of "hard problem" is just an idiotic asspull by dualists that can't handle the fact science has blown them the fuck out.

Perhaps you should read Dennett's "Quining Qualia". Ironically the incompetent moron presents a nice collection of thought experiments invalidating his own stance and underlining the actual hardness of the hard problem.

Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar. Surely it's not just your dualistic mind selectively interpreting them because you want to believe you're something more special than matter.