>see a philosophy topic on another board >people say Daniel Dennett isn't a philosopher
He went to Harvard and is famous, so why is he seen as an idiotic joke? Why is Peter Singer seen as a joke when he has about 4 or 5 of the world's best universities on his CV?
Just what the hell does a "proper philosopher" do, and why is their work as inconsequential as the meme philosophers? Bear in mind that I'm the Munchhausen trilemma poster.
2. Why are the olden time philosophers worshipped when they spouted unbelievable amounts of crap that I'm sure no one could get away with today? Is it REALLY all just social posturing? I always shitpost that it is, but it is still a shock to see that I'm right about literally everything.
3. Is there really anything about today's Caapeetalizm *sniff* that will lead to "ruin" on its own terms? I like watching Zizek but it's like he's trying to knock down an imaginary castle. Solar power is becoming cheaper to use. I think Zizek is depressed that societal collapse or revolution won't happen in his lifetime.
The only thing I really know about philosopher-santa is his position on qualia. He's a stemlord who unironically believes in that spooky emergent bullshit. Or something even worse than that I suppose; that qualia is somehow by magic actually reducible to matter/energy (in the way we currently understand it). He never really makes his exact position clear in this regard iirc.
Why is it so hard for IFLS autists to just at least acknowledge the possibility that matter might have additional fundamental properties we aren't aware of (or at least accepting ) and that qualia is one of them? Are they so afraid that they'd be perceived as giving ground up to religitards that they'd forsake logic?
Logan Baker
Dennett is retarded for these reasons. Singer tells everyone that they are massively immoral, including himself. Who is going to like or agree with that?
Jonathan Ward
utilitarianism is autism why do you think that?
Jaxon Cooper
Because of felicific calculus
William Cox
...
Isaiah Russell
it isn't, it's actually the only objective way to look at rationalizing your decisions
Grayson Flores
t. Sam Harris
Ryder Sullivan
>Why is it so hard for IFLS autists to just at least acknowledge the possibility that matter might have additional fundamental properties we aren't aware of (or at least accepting ) and that qualia is one of them?
The issue is the qualia crowd are very emphatic that qualia are not properties of matter at all.
Jacob Green
>I'm actually not having experiences. Okay, buddy.
Lincoln Wilson
Sam Harris is right about basically everything. In before waves of butthurt religious tards.
Owen Rogers
The "qualia crowd"?
David Chalmers and Galen Strawson are literally panpsychists. Mental properties are coextensive with physical properties. This is 100% more scientific than assuming there is a magic soul in your head that somehow doesn't just respond to physics.
Adrian Barnes
He doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about to me >My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics
>Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality.
>Despite our perennial bad behavior, our moral progress seems to me unmistakable.
Brody Evans
I don't know what you're talking about OP.
I wouldn't remotely agree or endorse absolutely everything Dennett or Singer say but they are two of the most respected academics in the world. In fact arguably the most respected philosopher and moral philosopher (respectively) living.
The only people that would describe them as jokes are the sort of dumb trash talkers you get on Veeky Forums who think just insulting people is some kind of knock down brilliant argument.
Jeremiah Lewis
How does just greentexting something make it wrong?
Parker Jones
How does Sam Harris saying something make it right?
Jonathan Lee
I didn't say or imply that.
Colton Anderson
I didn't say or imply greentexting something makes it wrong
Kayden Davis
Cool story Bro.
Jose Cruz
Philosophy is dead.
Luke Gonzalez
>more students than ever >more journals than ever >more faculties than ever I just thing you don't want to put effort into understanding post-modern philosophy.
Colton Parker
>Why is it so hard for IFLS autists to just at least acknowledge the possibility that matter might have additional fundamental properties we aren't aware of (or at least accepting ) and that qualia is one of them? >that they'd forsake logic? Because we don't allow that kind of reasoning with appeals to unfalsifiable claims for literally anything else. Why should we do it just for qualia? Especially if we have an alternative theory that doesn't require these additional assumptions? Doesn't the logical convention of Ockham's Razor tell us to disregard the more complex theory?
Kayden Nguyen
>Why is Peter Singer seen as a joke
because he walked back from his stance on personhood and euthanasia when his mother got Alzheimers, which makes him a fucking faggot because it was right when it didn't affect him but the second it does "oh its really complicated" all of a sudden? fuck off
Angel Williams
I thought he always said it was based on the preferences of the family.
Specifically, what stance did he change?
James King
Oh no someone changed his mind! Get the fuck out of here you brain dead mongrel.
Aiden Lopez
He also got roasted by Shelly Kagan and his argument from modal personism.
Samuel Hughes
Singer is both probably one of the living philosophers who most lives according to what he preaches, by paying a really large portion of his income to charities, and there are studies showing that people trained in ethics (theology students) do just as well (badly) as the norm population, when it comes to doing what they think to be right. Furthermore, he openly says that he does give preference to his family, I think. Lastly, even if he was a hypocrite, that wouldn't make what he says wrong.
Carter Turner
>it's popular so now it's shit Every time.
Elijah Edwards
Modern and post-modern philosophers are autistic.
Classical and medieval philosophers were schizophrenic.
Andrew Price
they lack rigor, imo. a lot of non sequiturs. never read dennett personally, so I'm not really speaking specifically of him; but regarding the new atheist movement, it just strikes me as philosophically juvenile in its approach. i've read harris, watched his lectures, listened to hitchens' lectures, alongside dawkins and krauss at times, but they consistently fail to impress me with their arguments. sure, i might agree with them at times; but this does not mean i respect them as philosophers. they do not *convince* me, they simply *agree* with me, insofar as our conclusions are concerned. my qualm is i disagree with the soundness of their arguments, at times, but consistently in their approach.
