Philosophy as a form of academic study or being part of higher education in general is entirely pointless and actually...

Aka people who actually check facts, logic, and research.
Perhaps it's time you faggots that think you can just say "I just know, I'm just right" and win an argument got removed

>Perhaps it's time you faggots that think you can just say "I just know, I'm just right" and win an argument got removed

>Prove me wrong.
>>protip, you can't

???

That was fucking weak

Not him, but why do you feel threatened/insulted? Science and Philosophy are different subjects, working differently - one of the main aims of Philosophy is the creation of narratives (through, though you might of course say it isn't really true, the use of logic, argumentation and yes, even flowery prose and poetry) to navigate life, morally, politically, ontologically - doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of possible overlap, and even if there is it could be used to evolve and better one's ideas, instead of just having the two blindly clash.

This too.

t. someone who's never studied philosophy

That's the point though.
Not OP, but I see people on this board and in real life try to use personal philosophy as universal fact.
You could through all the research and evidence at them, but they're too focused on just being right that they don't see the bigger picture.

>Science and Philosophy are different subjects
Science is a branch of philosophy.

Cunt I took philosophy in college shit was soooooo fucking one sided

It's entirely pointless to have a view of history framed by perennial themes in the development of the thought of man? Is there no point in mastering a terminological framework with which to dissect ideas that can't quite be quantified as of yet, and being versed in the history of such ideas?

More importantly, have you read any of the names you just mentioned? Or are you literally just a selfrighteous prick applying his isolated worldview and experiences to the rest of the word as facts when you can't even be asked to do research?

you took one class taught by one professor and got one perspective.
Gee.

Why do people make these threads?

What do you do with your life? What is your weltenschaung?

Nigga I've read all of those except Nietzsche
Once you've read one you've read them all though, it's basically the same bullshit every time
Fuckers think they know shit beyond their own pathetic lives

*throw
Finally someone who agrees with me

Let's not shit up the discussion by just repeating the same shit we've all heard time and time again.

Have they tried arguing their position, giving arguments, reasoning and being open to external ideas? If yes, you found yourself a philosopher; if no, you just came across some random idiot who's decided what he knows is enough for himself.

Really, Philosophy isn't (or shouldn't be) an idiotic repetition of a few quotes and ideas, it's meant to be tallked about, to change, to be scarred and wounded in a discussion and emerging, monstrous and renewed, at the end.

>Philosophy in general is entirely pointless.
>An entire type of activity in general. Completely without use.
>It goes wrong because it applies its isolated experience to everyone.
>This happens universally and everywhere.
>Names 5 completely different kinds of thinkers.

Really got us there bud.

>it's another positivist mouth-breathing high school stemlord from Veeky Forums, insecure in his own intelligence, attempting to argue against philosophy without understanding his position is a philosophical stance in itself: episode
read a book nigger

Sadly the majority of people agree with you. The fact you used 'finally' is a sign you should be embarrassed by how unaware you are.

>Science is a branch of philosophy.

What if philosophy is a branch of science?

It would apply the scientific method and OP would have nothing to whine about.

That's the thing, they do argue their position by throwing their own facts and numbers around, but when I ask for sources of information it's either
A: they don't have any
B: the source has no research cited and is unreliable
C: their opinion comes from extremely extrapolating data
But what you said makes sense. Perhaps I'm just being like OP and focusing too much on the idiotic repetition.

No

>who actually check facts, logic and research

Umh...
>empirism is entirely fundamentally based on empirical proofs
>logic itself follows the same rules of Math and Physics
>many sciences were born as a direct conseguence of specific branches of philosophy

Try harder: next time avoid Ad Populum and demonstrate your thesis.

>their own facts and numbers
Well, this I'm not really understanding - looks to me you've maybe talked with people who were trying to talk shit about their area of expertise. I know that serious philosophers that want to engage with a particular topic (especially if already covered extensively by other disciplines) do actually research the issue they choose to engage, working with experts in the field and developing theories or concepts only after having wrestled with the data. It's probably a bit rash to lump them in with philosophy undergrads who've only had to deal with classics of philosophy.

I want to add, though, that I don't share this approach - as far as I'm concerned, Philosophy works best when written and read like literature, when it is used not to describe some trascendental truth but to individually (and I want to stress, individually) what surrounds us.

The fuck did you even prove?
I made a point, you just stated common knowledge and accused me of a logical fault I didn't even use

>but to individually (and I want to stress, individually) what surrounds us.
Elaborate on this?

How could all those philosophical disciplines not use logic, research and facts if that's what they're BASED on?

I know I'm going to sound obnoxious, and you'll think I'm trying to use this insult as an argument, but you really look like pic related right now.

can someone explain to me this t. meme

>Science and Philosophy are different subjects, working differently
Complete and utter horseshit.

>- one of the main aims of Philosophy is the creation of narratives ... to navigate life, morally, politically, ontologically
Bullshit. Philosophy has nothing to do with "navigating life" - you disgusting faggot and retard.

>- doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of possible overlap, and even if there is it could be used to evolve and better one's ideas, instead of just having the two blindly clash.
Kill yourself.

Not seeing any positive (or for the matter, negative) arguments there.

>Works against being more enlightened about the world
Then what does enlighten man, if not inquiry?

Agree with your response in 1 and 3.

>politically, ontologically
>Bullshit. Philosophy has nothing to do with "navigating life" - you disgusting faggot and retard.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Kant, Nietzche, James, Peirce, Dewey, and basically everyone else disagree.

I agree with him about the fact that the serious one deal with de datas and the expert before entering in the abstract part.

Same here please.

Come with arguments or go my friend.

t. is some french bullshit and it means signed or something

for example, in reference to your posts

t. people who don't know what t. means

wrong faggot

t is short for a finnish word "terveisin" and it basically means "regards"

its a meme from ylilauta

Actually I'm Belgian and I don't remember anything like that, but thanks for your informations.

sorry dad

i don't think they believe philosophy is a way to navigate life; the ego does that. philosophy just helps you cope with the pressure, if you, in layman's terms, have "deep thoughts"

Because so many people take the bait.

Philosophy is about the ultimate nature and structure of reality - the nature of space and time, causation, mathematical objects, etc.

thinking logically, indeed.

>I'm so "enlightened" that I shitpost prove me wrong threads on Veeky Forums
If anything, braindead cretins like you are why we need philosophy.

Philosophy:
1. It's a process, the hunt for wisdom, never settle down by sitting on the answer. Always set questionmarks of the obvious.
2. Hard work through systematic thinking and reasoning.
3. Philosophy is careful to give a final solution.

>Science is a branch of philosophy.
Almost, the philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy. If some sperg starts arguing with me about the relative merits of various enolate counterions and how they might be predicted with a comprehensive model, there's no philosophy directly involved in the argument. All that's been put away after its implicit use in working out the rules of engagement.
>argue against philosophy without understanding his position is a philosophical stance in itself
More specifically his position is a set of actions taken after accepting a particular philosophical stance, as above. I agree it's asinine to argue about the "practicality" of various philosophical positions in general with no way to quantitatively assess/compare the worth of soft skills and personal growth, but certain positions at the root of science have long and consistently demonstrated their superiority in certain specific, constrained spheres of life and along certain metrics (particularly utility in effecting material improvements to the quality of life.) To treat it as "just a type of philosophy" suggests a sort of parity that isn't there where it counts most, and "just applied philosophy" neglects that additional insight is gained (though rigor is lost in some form) when you increase the scale on which you operate - robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf - both are intellectually dishonest.

>let's dogpile the STEM kid because ability in math built on abstraction and rigorous proof or in scientific fields that don't yield good conceptual understanding without the judicious use and analysis of evidence doesn't mean ability to think
>our framework is far broader and more complete - science is at best an arbitrary narrowing of focus