U CAN'T NO NUFFIN

>it's another science can prove unfalsifiable statements
that's why philosophy and theology exist faggots, because some questions still cannot be answered empirically (or in fact, may never be).

>inb4 u shouldnt waste ur time asking urself those quesshuns then
anti-intellectual spotted

1 + 1 = 2
Sorry that offends you.

>Theology tard mad about science
>Calls someone else anti intellectual

If science can't answer something that doesn't mean theology can user.

Why should it? I'm not a philosonigger.

there are no such thing as objective means.

>if you ever indulge in metaphysical reasoning/questioning then you MUST be a faithfag
As I said, anti-intellectual to the core

Please just read Hume you utter fucking retards

of course, but I don't see the harm in those that do it, whether through philosophical or theological discourse. Is the science crowd becoming scared of people asking themselves questions now? I would hope not, that'd be very sad state of affair.

>Wastes time on "Metaphysical" nonsense
>N-No you are the anti intellectual

It's not philosophy it's sociology, anthropology, woman and gender studies and other complete and utter shit "studies" that give humanities a bad name!

#NotAllHumanities

Get off your high horse and don't pretend that empirical sciences have the same validity as math. They don't.

This. GHOST HUNTERS IS INTELLECTUAL

Yes they do. Physics is objective.

They are empirical though.

>I-I don't like people thinking d-differently than m-me
Sad!

Great argument
>Please look at my magic hippie crystal healing lady you pleb

You can try to catch ghosts all you want user, me and everyone with a brain will look down on you though.

Can you point out those "lot of philosophers and theologians" that you know, that get mad at science?

As far as i know, religious people aren't epistemologically skeptics.

You don't have to think with logic or reason user, that is your choice, but keep in mind you chose to be an idiot.

I can live with that

>logos is not a literal byproduct of philosophical enquiry
Yes, I am clearly the idiot here.

Hume didnt even believe in God, much less magic

>Theology
>Logos
Pick 1.

But he brought up the problem of induction and causation. The biggest "you can't no nothing" arguments ever proposed.

Yeah user, arguing about succubi on /x/ is so smart. Those stupid science tards always making stuff up.

Well if the logic is solid...

Read my posts again, I hardly make a strong defense of faithfags. But I do believe they indulge in the same sort of unfalsifiable enquiries as philosophers do, so it would be hypocritical of me to shut them down. They go about things their way and I go about mine.

Hume very likely was an atheist from the positions he took in his Dialogues. A hard skeptic is probably the best you can get away with, if you are gonna try to accurately pin down his position on God.

>fight against my strawman user pretty please
how about no.

>Strawman
But that literally is what Metaphysics and theology are. It's arguing over bullshit that there is no actual scientific evidence to show that it exists. Arguing over demons and ghosts is the same as arguing over santa claus and the easter bunny. You aren't an intelligent person.

t. retard

>hurr muh materialism

Do you people think acting stupid is an argument?

Metaphysics also encompassed your beloved empiricism, user.
If you ever asked yourself about what the universe is, how it began, why or how then congratulations, you indulged in metaphysical inquiring. Guess you mustn't be that intelligent either.

>inb4 metaphysics is the only branch of philosophy
protip lad, it isn't

>How did the universe begin
That is physics and is looked at by physics majors

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact most schools of philosophy begin with metaphysics, which is basically just looking at the world and trying to make sense of it. Every scientific or moral query begins with metaphysics in one way or another.

Why is the sky blue? Why does apple fall? Why does day follow night? Why does the tide come and go? Until people finally run out of questions, metaphysics ( I feel like I got to keep mentioning that word since it gets you so bung up) and philosophy WILL persist to exist.

>Posts questions that can all be answered by science

What, pray tell, are non-subjective truths?

1 + 1 = 2

>Why should the sky be blue? Why should the apple fall? Why should the day follow night? Why should the tide come and go?

Phixed for philosophy to remain relevant for one more year by giving you some free questions to ponder over, you're welcome.

Meanwhile in the real world

And they all began with metaphysics, that was the point. Philosophy in general just seeks to answer the questions people ask themselves everyday. Why must we live and die? Why must we suffer? Why did we exist? What is our purpose? Why are my thoughts mine? Is there a free will? What is the best way to live? What is the best way to think ? Is there a best way to think? If so, what is it? What is good and what is bad? Is everything relative or are some things objective and immutable?

All of these things are valid questions and many are still unfalsifiable. So when we make value judgments (yet another thing that is derived from philosophy) about the usefulness of philosophy, then you must be very carefully about assessing whether it is pointless endeavor or not. Because I think many would disagree with you if you think it serves no purpose or yields nothing of value. Most of scientific discoveries began with questions like that.

>They began with metaphysics
And answered with physics. These questions are now science questions. Why would I go to a shaman to learn about space when I can learn it myself with something that is actually true?

So numbers exist outside of the mind?

The stemautists in this thread apparently define "truth" as brute logic, the the defined terms or dynamics of data. Numbers and shit, with no contrast or cause and effect as information and meaning. The problems with science and "truth" are underpinned by the problems of realizing observation and manifest things as "really true". People trust science because it's strong and reliable, just a seeming validity that is fundamentally allowed to waver and redefine. Science isn't wholesome, it doesn't tie 'everything' together so it's realized truth isn't the same sort of truth as mathematics, logic, or systematic philosophy and that's a serious limitation. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning and shit

Numbers are tools but they represent real things. 1 plus 1 does equal 2 and this is true no matter what.

>1 plus 1 does equal 2 and this is true no matter what.
Does having the property of being the correct answer to a question make something a non-subjective truth? How can we know the answer when we can't conceive of numbers from beyond the standpoint of subjectivity?

Therefore God exists and muh feels are totes real so SHUT UP WORTHLESS SCIENCOLOGISMISTS.

What?

Nobody is telling you to go see a shaman about what has been answered. I am talking about what has not been answered, or what might never be answerable empirically such as what is good or bad. Questions are as powerful as answers. That's why there is a whole field dedicated to political philosophy. Scratch that away and you can kiss human rights, democracy or justice goodbye.

That's more along the lines of ontology than classical metaphysics, but it's still philosophical nonetheless.

Even the concept of objectivity is philosophical. We know that under certain circumstances, things such as speed of light or mass can become relative. Who knows if there are some cosmic phenomenons where 1+1 stops being 2. What will empiricism do for you then?

Philosophy is nothing but mental masturbation.

>We can't conceive numbers
Bruh

The scientism crowd are literally becoming scared of people asking "why" or "what if". That's what have things come to. Even though the whole field of hard science is built on such propositions.

>Who knows if there are some cosmic phenomenons where 1+1 stops being 2
This is literally impossible. Math works the same no matter what universe you are in. Even in cases where adding 2 separate things create 4 is a transformation.

From beyond the standpoint of subjectivity, that's right. That is to say, if we're thinking about numbers, we're thinking, which implies our own subjectivity, which implies that the truth is not 'non-subjective' but rather contains an irreducible element of subjectivity within it, to the extent that we're capable of accessing this truth at all.
Or are you telling me that a computer running a program is treating numbers in exactly the same way that its programmer deals with the binary code that runs it?

>Scared of asking what if
No they aren't. You are an idiot.

I didn't say "What if...?," I asked "What?" As in, "I don't understand, could you explain?"

Computers don't think like humans. Objective truth in maths are real and you going "But muh brain" Doesn't stop something from not being true. Numbers are objective because they exist even without a human around to observe them.

Sorry I'm drunk, my post was basically if you don't like science being truthful, then why not let anything anyone says be "truth" including complete nonsense like religion or philosophy or anything anyone says.

Numbers have never been observed.

>Objective truth in maths are real and you going "But muh brain" Doesn't stop something from not being true.
Nowhere have I claimed that 2 + 2 =/= 4. I am simply positing that we can't think "2 + 2 = 4" from outside of subjectivity because only that which possesses or is defined by subjectivity is even capable of thought.
>Numbers are objective because they exist even without a human around to observe them.
Cool, where can I go to see, touch, taste, smell, or hear the number 9?
It isn't about disliking science's ability to interact with the truth, it's about the fact that the STEMlords ITT have either never interacted with the philosophy of language of the 20th century or are all trolls.

You can literally observe them in any physical thing.

9

Seeing one object isn't the same as seeing the concept '1.'

I interacted with philosophy once and it seemed like a game to justify incorrect things so to hell with the whole school.

Judging by this thread, some clearly do.

That was just a far-fetched example. I don't quite remember the name of the exact particle, I think it's quarks but it could be something else, which apparently exist in a state of both being and not being. Or what about "dark matter", which has apparently a mass but doesn't quite exist either (or at least cannot be measured or quantified by any means yet known to man). All I am saying is that science has its work cut out and there are many questions about what can be objective known or not.

So what's the problem with asking ourselves these questions about a lot of other things? What is the exact harm or pervasiveness of such inquiries? Isn't it good old plato which stated "I know that I know nothing"?

That is no more or less 'objectively' present than anything else on my computer screen.
That's nice and all, but you're probably trolling me.

What number am I observing if I look at a tree?

Numbers exist as both a standalone concept and as a real quantity of a thing. Even before the concept of the number existed animals have been able to understand and see the quantity of things and even without an observer a quantity still exists.

>Clearly do
Kek, no.
No one is scared of answers, it's people laughing at idiots who try to answer basic questions with theology.

OK, so where in nature can I find the number 9 standing alone? I'm not talking about finding a group of 9 rocks or anything like that, where is 9 itself? If 9 exists objectively in nature then I should be able to go out and touch it.

>Cool, where can I go to see, touch, taste, smell, or hear the number 9?

Nowhere, because numbers are abstract objects without physical or temporal location.

So they aren't non-subjective? Or do abstract concepts exist independently of the human mind?

In nature a number exists as a quantity. It isn't separate but it is still an objective quantity.

OK, where is the objective quantity 9? Is there some universal faculty shared by all plant and animal life that recognizes and responds to its presence?

Even without humans numbers still behave the same. Every living thing would be able to construct the rules of math separately if smart enough so it is not subjective. Numbers and the rules around them exist in the quantity and rules of things.
Any time you have 9 of something that is nine in an objective manner.

>This thread
youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

>Or do abstract concepts exist independently of the human mind?

They exist independently of the human mind, but not as concepts in the sense of mental objects or representations.

>Even without humans numbers still behave the same
Again, how can any human possibly know how numbers behave without humans prsent?
>Every living thing would be able to construct the rules of math separately if smart enough so it is not subjective.
>if smart enough so it is not subjective
This is what escapes me--you think that intelligence, at any degree, is somehow separate from subjectivity. I don't understand why this should be true.
>that is 9 in an objective manner
I'm confused about what you think 'objective' and 'subjective' mean.

I would agree dogmatic theology is "dumb". But underneath that layer, they are asking the same existential questions all of us do. The belief of god is the belief in an objective absolute, that is something which is immutable, such as 1+1=2 for the sciencefags. So for this reason, I tend to give most faithfags the benefit of the doubt.

But while knowing 1+1=2 is nice, it still leaves a lot to be desired about a whole manner of things. It doesn't tell us much about how to live our lives or what are the right questions we should ask to achieve that. And that's philosophy's job.

>but not as concepts in the sense of mental objects or representations.
So there's some kind of active intellect thinking abstract concepts into concrete forms that humans can conceive or perceive? Or are concepts not intrinsically mental?

>Again, how can any human possibly know how numbers behave without humans prsent?
Other animals can count. By that train of logic I shouldn't be able to know how chemistry works without humans because hurr durr whenever I look away from something it might not exist!
We know because all evidence of the universe before humans existed shows that math worked the same then too.

>We know because all evidence of the universe before humans existed shows that math worked the same then too.
Whether or not this is the case (and I am by no means saying that it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that you, a subjective being, can never conceive of math from beyond the standpoint of subjectivity.

Numbers are abstract objects, not concepts. Concepts of numbers are concepts, and also abstract objects if you follow Frege.

Ok but using proof I can objectively prove something. 1=1 is objective outside of my mind or anyone elses.

You do realize not everything has a scientific answer right?

This doesn't make the part of you capable of doing math into a non-subjective being.
>Frege
I must confess that I'm not that familiar with the guy but it's beside my point, which is that humans cannot think without subjectivity being involved in the thought.

You can make up questions and try to answer them. That is what most philosophers and theologians do but it's pretty much the mental version of fapping.

Me being able to do and understand math is subjective. But it's an objective truth that 1=1.

It isn't a non-subjective truth. Your mind is involved in the process of articulating the sentence "One plus one is two." The universe doesn't perform mathematical operations, the mind uses mathematical operations to make sense of a world.

You know we are social beings and most of our norms and customs (even the "enlightened" modern ones) rest on philosophical premises , right? People asking themselves whether democracy or human rights or having a judiciary branch is just fapping right? It has no real, practical effects on people's lives, right?

>You know we are social beings and most of our norms and customs (even the "enlightened" modern ones) rest on philosophical premises , right?
Not the guy you're respdonding to but the idea that all social customs have deep 'philosophical' justifications is nonsense. Philosophy justifies these things after the fact, if it does at all.
>People asking themselves whether democracy or human rights or having a judiciary branch is just fapping right?
In 99% of cases, it probably is. Just look at /pol/.