Should philosophers be obliged to study elementary math (differential geometry, functional analysis...

>Knowing some modeling tools like modern mathematics gives you nothing back in terms of knowledge of metaphysics/ontology
Except it actually does, you undergrad plebeian. If your metaphysics is based on a Euclidean universe, on a time independent of space, or on particles behaving deterministically at all scales, then your metaphysics is fundamentally flawed. Take for example Kant, who incorrectly assumed al geometry had to be Euclidean, simply because non-Euclidean geometry wasn't yet popular in his time.

top quality m8

What about complexity science? Neuroscience? Psychology? Anthropology?

I am not joking when I say that philosophers have tunnel vision. If it is wrong, please show me.

Do you even understand what you are doing? You are using science as a metaphysical tool to tell other people their metaphysics is wrong. That's not necessarily how it works, as not everyone will share this view.
The fact that at large scales the universe is better modeled as a 4-manifold tells nothing about metaphysics, as a model is as good as it is functional. At most it might give you a different perspective on things.

Every person should be pushed to study more than 101 diferential calculus and 101 analytic geometry

>The fact that at large scales the universe is better modeled as a 4-manifold tells nothing about metaphysics
Relativity tells us very important things about the ontological nature of time.

You two are simply morons.
Already in the 1920s and 30s whitehead tried incorporating general relativity and quantum mechanics into his metaphysical writings.
Philosophers have always been influenced by other sciences. Physics, biology, sociology etc..
Just because you are ignorant or listening to some "internet philosopher" does not mean that everyone is like that.
I wont even mention that its very possible you are listening to a philosopher that already knows the things you mentioned but he has a reason to not include them in his talk or ideas which you are simply not smart to understand or think about because of your shallow or almost non existence knowledge of philosophy.

There are many deterministic models that account for quantum randomness.
That being said the question of free will is literally nobody cares outside of pop Phil.

>Newtonian time and causality
David Hume . . .?

Did you just read Sam harris and assume all of philosophy is like that?

Kek. So calling us morons is how you battle ignorance. Why not give me some examples of philosophers who do incorporate stuff from other fields?

I read a lot of books and see philosophers being mentioned in other fields but am not aware of it being the other way around.

>There are many deterministic models that account for quantum randomness.
There are none. In fact, Bell's theorem proves that this is impossible.

>Sam Harris
Sam Harris is actually one of the few acceptable exceptions. Perhaps the only contemporary philosopher who actually deserves the title "philosopher".

The point I'm trying to make is that science, by itself, doesn't necessarily collide with metaphysics, as its models aren't based on truth but on certain goodness criteria i.e how good does it fits repeated observation.
This can obviously influence a philosopher's perspective, if he values the input of the scientific method, but by itself it doesn't necessarily constitute, say, an attack on a certain metaphysical position.

As a perspective I can agree on that, scientists showing that a good model of the universe treats time differently than it was in Galilean physics can offer a new point of view on things.

Are you blaming Kant for not knowing something that wasn't discovered at the time?

Anyway I agree knowing math is important for philosophers, and in fact good philosophers do know math.

Conversely, empirical scientists should know philosophy too. Philosophy of science at least.

Please show me a philosopher who ignores all of complexity science, neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology while talking about a subject it would be intellectually dishonest to do so in.

Please

>Are you blaming Kant for not knowing something that wasn't discovered at the time?
Long after Kant died, philosophers still valued his view on geometry higher than the results of math and physics. It was a philosopher (Henri Bergson) who was responsible that Einstein didn't receive a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity, just because Bergson didn't like that Einstein's discovery totally fucked up his (Bergson's) dilettantish philosophy of time. Luckily Einstein had a few other discoveries worthy of a Nobel prize.

>Conversely, empirical scientists should know philosophy too. Philosophy of science at least.
To a scientist, philosophy of science is trivial and offers nothing he didn't already know.

I honestly dont care about your ignorance.
I mentioned whitehead. Go and read about his ideas or read his book although its probably one of the toughest philosophy books of the 20th century.
positivists were for exmaple influenced by quantum physics and then the discovery of the DNA.
In fact any more or less important philosopher knew the latest achievements of some other fields around his.

Peter Singer

Another "muh STEM" bait thread..
Just go and learn math or physics or chemistry, who is stoping you?

K confirmed for retard.

Bells theorem literally means nothing to philosophical determinism and if you think it does you are putting the cart before the horse.

Only hard determinism thinks you can actually predict actions. Soft determinism gives no fucks about that and is happy to say classical and quantum influences cause your actions, that your have no free will and are determined by outside 'random' forces.

>or when they only think in finite dimensions and are not aware that infinite dimensionality is a possibility.

>if they don't take into consideration this crackpot theory then they aren't credible

Quantum randomness doesn't equate to free will.....
It is still determinism albeit beginning with the last quantum fluctuation rather than at the big bang.

I cringe when fucking retards who think college physics equate to working at NASA and having a Doctorate talk about philosophy and science as if they knew anything.

You still wouldn't listen to them.

Philosophers do, do biology though.
>Charles Darwin
>Richard Dawkins
>anyone taking Evolutionary seriously as an explicative mechanism

They are just shitty philosophers.

t. Biologist without funding and a chip on his shoulder

Evolutionary theory....
scuse the mistake.

>Quantum randomness doesn't equate to free will.....
Of course it doesn't, you illiterate moron. It makes free will impossible and at the same time it makes determinism impossible.

>Animal rights moral philosopher

He is literally irrelevant in philosophy.

And even besides that, how the fuck are you going to argue an atheist hedonistic utilitarian ignores neuroscience and neurochemistry??

I can't fathom how you arrived at that idea.

>>Sam Harris

>at the same time it makes determinism impossible.
No it doesn't.
Re-read what I said.
It moves determinism to the most recent quantum fluctuation.....
It is still determinism, it just doesn't begin at the "beginning".

>you illiterate moron
thanks

The collapse of the wave function is purely random. It cannot be accurately simulated deterministically.

He denies the significant neuroanatomical differences between humans and animals which evolutionarily led to humans having distinct consciousness while animals operate on a level so low that it doesn't qualify as consciousness anymore.

>I'm going to pretend only hard determinism exists and only argue about that :^)

I am not saying the whole process demands quantification and explanation to justify determinism. It only demands the aftermath be understandable, which it is.

Try the converse of your proposition.
What it would look like is the universe wouldn't have an order or an intelligibility to it.
QM is elusive but it is still understandable.
If what you said was true in that it required a total explanation then it would mean that nothing could be explained.

Soft determinisms only criteria is external forces meeting your quantum randomness easily

There is no such thing as "soft determinism".

You are making no sense.

No he is a hedonistic utilitarian and the bar of 'human consciousness' isn't necessary to be factored into his equation

>hedonistic
>doesn't eat meat
Something's not right here.

What specifically has you perplexed?

Be warned I have shit taste:
Ecocriticism seemed interesting because I am studying ecology, so I came across this fellow:
- Timothy Morton - could do with some complexity science and ecology, also cryptic postmodern style writing

Others:

- Slavoj Zizek - he is entertaining, but otherwise he could take some courses in psychology and sociology
- Daniel Dennet - he should maybe read into the findings of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky but mainly psychology
- Peter Sloterdijk - he writes so verbose, it is a lost cause really

Otherwise, I know only what happens in Dutch philosophy. One wrote that Pandas and a lot of nature isn't necessary but gave very few ecological arguments and it was shallow. Other Dutch 'philosophers' just reflect on society and seem to be more like pop philosophers.

Another Dutch philosopher wrote botanical philosophy which was quite good though it had some little mistakes, his young apprentice has potential.

One interesting fellow seems to be David Chalmers, but I haven't read anything of him.

The thing is, I do not know enough philosophers to make a fair judgement. But nobody has given me contemporary philosophers that show me that philosophy does not have a tunnel vision problem.

I also used to browse on r/philosophy and asked questions and it just reinforced the view that philosophy has a tunnel vision problem.

Please, if anyone can give me a contemporary philosopher to read, whatever it be journals or a book, that shows me that it ain't so, go ahead.

Read Francis Schaeffer.
Philosophy is fragmented and he was piecing it together before they got him.

Look up the difference between a deterministic and a non-deterministic Turing machine. A deterministic Turing machine cannot simulate the collapse of a quantum mechanical wave function. Once again OP is proven right. Philosophers who don't know shit about models of computation shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.

Your misunderstanding of the word "deterministic".

>- Peter Sloterdijk - he writes so verbose, it is a lost cause really
kek

>One wrote that Pandas and a lot of nature isn't necessary
Sounds lulzworthy. Name?

>Francis Schaeffer
Will do.

>>topic

I did like some older philosophers, such as Seneca and Tocqueville. They had to do with what they got, contemporary philosophers do not have the excuse.

His name is Bas Haring. He studied physics and artificial intelligence and somehow got to be a philosopher. He also presents shows and likes to be called a "folk-philosopher", and writes and talks as if everyone are children (because he wants to make philosophy accessible, thus folk-philosopher).

His book made a lot of conservationists mad, which I liked, but otherwise I find him having a touch of autism: clueless on living things.

It is the same with Daniel Dennet. They are heavily intoxicated with Apollonian reason and logic that they become clueless about certain stuff.

Same with the black science man, Neil Degrasse, who proposed Rationalia. See this:

nationalreview.com/article/437324/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationality-pipe-dream

When I read Dennett, in the beginning I thought it was satire. There is no way someone intentionally presents such poor arguments. Dennett somehow manages to disprove his own claims and convince the reader of the opposite of what he (Dennett) believes.

>an attack on a certain metaphysical position.
But I constantly see metaphysical claims with absurdly zero grounding in reality that we have already falsified. If your only defense is that my claims are based on a model you're completely fucked. You're doing nothing useful, at all, beyond playing word games. Bravo for getting paid to contribute zero to anything

Physicsfag here. Yes they should. Metaphysics lost its relevance as a discipline a century ago.

Where we get annoyed is that a lot of philosophy impinges on the domain of physics and they don't even know it. They throw around retarded, word based arguments and it's like - we did the math already and confirmed it by experiment. We already understand why this entire line of thinking doesn't even apply to our universe and can't because X. Then they have the nerve to try and say we're the ones that are wrong, when we've already used the science to build practical machines and all they've done is play word sudoku.

Then you get guys who try to use physics ideas in their philosophy and mangle it horribly because they can't even do basic calculus. William Lane Craig come to mind (not to pick on theiests, I've seen the opposite as well) as a prime example. All the guys doing philosophy about the beginning of the universe are bumbling around with things they don't understand at all. Not even close. That hasn't been the domain of philosophy for at least 100 years, yet they insist on trying anyway, telling us were the ones that don't get it, as they stumble around like blind fools playing with daddy's toys. It's honestly kind of embarrassing to watch

>gives an example of a christian public apologist of all things.
Analytiuc philosophers are usually very well versed in different scientific fields.

Can you give examples? For all my critique of philosophy I do think it is interesting but all I can find are the turds.

By accident I found this fellow Elijah Millgram, I want to give him a try. Anyone know he is any good?

Physicists should take advanced medicine
Mathematicians should also be proficient in computer coding
Historians should take classes in nuclear physics
English majors should be psychologists

Almost funny. The ones you mentioned are not that relevant.

But there are enough fields that could take more notice from other fields.

>Analytiuc philosophers are usually very well versed in different scientific fields.
Well versed =/= understanding, especially as it relates to QM or relativity. I can't count the number of times I thought I was well versed on a topic until I got better at the math and realized how horribly wrong I was.

There are some philosophers with dual degrees though that do what appears to be interesting work. Unfortunately the physics community gives it a 'that's cute' kind of treatment.

>Mathematicians should also be proficient in computer coding
Most mathematicians (and physicists) are proficient at coding though.

As for your other examples they don't really apply. Nobody is saying an ethical philosopher should study physics. But when a philosopher is dealing with metaphysics they should know whether or not their ideas are even relevant.

As I mentioned above a lot of metaphilosophers clearly don't understand the first thing about physics yet insist on using quantum mechanical "ideas" incorrectly.

Can you please give an example of a contemporary philosopher dealing with metaphysics of whom you are not satisfied?
Im very very curious.

Zizek.

>implying he didnt just watch a public lecture by someone like krauss about how philosophy is dead and came here to shitpost.

What books did you read of his where he writes about metaphysics?

I am not I think Zizek is entertaining and sometimes insightful. But it is hard to take someone seriously who uses psychoanalysis and Hegel. But yeah that is sort of a product of his time.

The fact lacan's ideas are not very useful in treating patients does not mean they are not useful in other respects.

>classes
They should carry heavy stones and craters and take some public whippings desu, that'll teach them.

>he doesn't understand that the philosophy of science trickles down to how the sciences are taught and thus effects the conceptions and thoughts of physicists.

Agree, that is an assumption I make. But when a field has largely been discredited it makes you a bit skeptical.

CompSci major here
the fuck do stochastic processes have to do with metaphysics

The greatest philosopher of our time is Imam Fethuallh Gulen By the age of five he was as brilliant as most with a Phd. He believes in changing the world by peace through education and will usher in the Golden Generation who inherent the Earth. Someday with technology and spirituallty we will be able to enslave the Djinn and profit form them as teachers and workers since Djinn can live fro thousands of years. Imagine what can learn from them and to bring valuable minerals from Mars. You should learn from him and soon you to love him as much as we do.

>the greatest philosopher of our time
>not based Nassim Taleb

Deadlift more, faggot

t. positivist

I am not sure if Nassim considers himself a philosopher though. I like him a lot, as he is someone who does take from different fields: if only he is somewhat imbalanced.

And I don't mind his contrarianism, it has its charm and is sometimes necessary. That did result in a lot of butthurt people though.