ITT: Things brainlets say

>but the economy is more important than going green

It is you brainlet.

Well, problem being, it is nowadays. I'm studying philosophy, and we're just learning continental crap. Plus, noone listen to what we have to say, rhetorics works best to make people act.

Only if you have a better explanation of the origin of life than natural processes, because 99.999999% is pretty close to certain. And don't say God.

>he doesn't know going green is good for the economy
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution
You are drinking the koolaid.

>maths

>0.999999... = 1

Nice bait

Do you think its a coincidence the people on the left side have black and white portraits?

You said more important. The benefit here still stands.

There's nothing wrong with either of Dawkins' quotes. Also with Nye, that's a legitimate position to take. it's called naive realism.

Climate change will barely affect first world nations, so why should you (provided you live in a developed country) or I care?

>create good economy
>prosperous enough to help the environment without fucking over the economy

or

>go green and treat the economy as though it's not nearly as important as saving polar bears
>society is crippled by shitty economy but at least we saved some polar bears :')

First world nations have lost the ability to defend their borders against the massive migrations of third world people that climate change would cause

>I'm studying philosophy, and we're just learning continental crap

Fellow philosopher here, and that is completely true.

If we could eradicate all that continental claptrap then the reputation of philosophy would skyrocket. Abandonment of Neoplatonism, scholasticism and logical positivism all were for good the reputation of philosophy, and there are few reasons to believe why abandonment of yet another pseudophilosophy will not do the same.

Or:
>Phase out fossil fuels powering the grid
>Switch to nuclear
>Use renewables on a local level
>Switch to electric vehicles

Really on the last one should be causing us any problems. There is absolutely no reason to still be using fossil fuels to power nations.

>Sea level rising
>Increased "extreme weather events"
>Increased food/water prices

There's probably more, but those are just off the top of my head.

>prosperous enough to help the environment without fucking over the economy
>implying we are helping at all

God.

No seriously you are a legit retard if you think that

Yes, because they hadn't been exposed to post-modernist horseshit

What did philosophy accomplish in the last decades? besides causing genetic research to brain drain to china because ethics nonsense.

Fuck me, I mean to say it's not a coincidence

>Philosophy is useless
Science made Philosophy so useless, Philosophy reacted so hard and became a post-modern den of appeals and pedantic circlejerks over semantics

I live in the United States. Sorry about Europe though.

Also, the refugee "crisis" could easily be dealt with if the EU would grow some balls.

Oh if it is then that's retarded.

Everyone dies philosophy, you included, whether you realize it or not

Fuck me *does philosophy*

>Mitochondrion is the power house of the cell

and

>Math is useless in biology/medicine! hurrdurr now how do i label an electron microscope image to diagnose disease???

Everybody creates art too but that doesnt mean you shouldnt be sterilized for picking an art major

Bad analogy. Philosophy is extremely fundamental and is more often than not the cradle of any given science.

Just because you define your field of study as every thought humans have it does not change the reality that philosophers are useless at best and detrimental at worst.

Again, EVERYONE does philosophy, many people poorly and it leads to many problems. Science is a description of the world, but it won't tell you what to do with that description

Again EVERYONE creates art so my art history degree is important and so is the tax payer / tuition money spent in the art department

It's not my field, nor do I define philosophy as 'every though humans have'. Read on the history of science, and you'll see just how strong the impact of philosophy has been on developing modern theories of science. Even today, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language are major players in the development of new research avenues, most especially within cognitive science. Your ignorance of philosophy's impact is in no way a convincing argument that it has none.

>'brainlet'

See this: By saying

"What did philosophy accomplish in the last decades? besides causing genetic research to brain drain to china because ethics nonsense."

You are making following philosophical points:

1) The value of something is measured by what it has accomplished - that is, by it's utility.

2) Brain research makes far too harsh ethical demands, what impedes scientific progress.

Philosophy is inevitable. Even by saying something as trivial as "Pegasus does not exist", you're making a philosophical point "There is no x for which it is true that it is a winged horse named Pegasus". Hence, the statement "Philosophy is worthless" is self-contradicting unless it is said dogmatically.

So nothing? gotcha

What, again, repeats your philosophical point "The value of something is measured by what it has accomplished - that is, by it's utility". There is no escaping philosophy.

You can have bad faith if you like, but you don't actually know much about philosophy. I wonder if you would have a computer were it not for the advances in logic made by philosophers such as Frege or Russell. But do you even know a thing about philosophy other than muh Nietzsche?

Just stop replying, brainlet. It's emberising

That's like your philosophical stance man

What, again, makes a philosophical point "philosophical stances are subjective".

Saying that philosophy is worthless is as inconceivable as saying "I do not exist", since being able to doubt your existence means that there is a doubting subject - you. Or, it's like saying that "language is meaningless", since that exact idea is being communicated in language and is capable of being understood.

Equally, it is inconceivable to make a point that "philosophy is worthless", since that in itself is a philosophical point.

>Saying that philosophy is worthless is as inconceivable as saying "I do not exist", since being able to doubt your existence means that there is a doubting subject - you.
Says who

...

Philisophy isn't useless. But it sure has been appropriated and corrupted in western academia.

>[some field that isn't my own] is useless/stupid
Get out of my face with that superiority complex bullshit.

Woah nice appeal to authority, you should read more :^)

What are you, fucking gay? Go back to your safe space with your ridiculous notions of appropriation.

Can somebody explain to me what the use of philosophy is today?

How can it tell us anything that science can't?

Not even memeing

That's not what an appeal to authority means you mongoloid. An appeal to authority would be to say that there are four elements because Aristotle said so. Trusting the opinions of the informed is not the same thing. Is it an appeal to authority to trust engineers when they evaluate the design of your bridge? No, it's common sense.

You fucking retard, stop embarrassing yourself.

I think it's perfectly fine for modern scientists to adopt a very narrow, very naive form of realism. Musing about metaphysics too much has the downside of making you think you are more intelligent than you really are, and can mislead you into wasting your time.

There are plenty of concrete, specialized problems that can be addressed in a strictly evidence based fashion, without thinking philosophically too much about it.

That is not to say philosophy is useless. But philosophy is a philosopher's job, not a scientist's job.

You see by asking that question you are engaging in philosophy so that justifies millions of dollars being wasted into their department :^)))))))

>Common sense
Whoa wait a minute I think you need to slow down, how do you define common sense and why do you think it means anything?

It has some validity. It's an oblate spheroid

It can be applied to other fields, but I don't think it has a direct application. That goes pretty well with the fact that philosophy was considered as ghe endgoal of one's academic pursuit.

That's not what philosophers do. Like anyone, in their research, philosophers make assumptions. But don't listen to those who say 'oh you're doing philosophy right now''. Really, philosophers have some main problems on which they work, and these problems end up influencing other fields of study. Take AI for instance. AI is a very young field about which we know very little. This is why the field is filled with notions exported directly from philosophy, e.g. strong/weak AI, the Chinese room, etc. Philosophy is only ever the first step towards creating a new science.

>That's not what philosophers do
Are you implying I'm being deliverately obtuse, annoying and confrontative on purpose in an attemp to parody the behavior of philosophers?

Haha, yes. But in all truth, philosophy may seem completely detached from everything to most people, but so does mathematics. If you're asking for the practical value of philosophy, my response is simply that new sciences are very often born from philosophy, and there I assume you take science to be useful. New scientific disciplines don't pop into existence, their are many people working on their conceptualization, and these tend to be philosophers. AI is a good example, and the whole of cognitive science is as well. We don't understand very much about the mind, and it's important to have philosophers sketch out models and point out very fundamental problems with competing models.

Philosophy is practically inextricable from intelligence. It is the first intellectual pursuit, having begat mathematics and science. In fact, it is undoubtedly the most demanding subject of inquiry, as its specimens are the most elusive. Also see

Even a large number of lousy practitioners does not a worthless discipline make.

>Philosophy reacted so hard and became a post-modern
That's really only Continental philosophy. It's a sad fact about philosophy that most laymen think that it's only what's done in France.

Indeed

Those fields didn't born out of pute philosophy. Philosophy aided into dealing with the basic questions those fields were generating. But it isn't really philosophers who are dealing wity such...

>i browse Veeky Forums therefor i'm smart

If I'm overestimating the importance of philosophy in those fields, I think you're underestimating it. Just think about the impact of philosophers like Searle, Fodor, Stalnaker, Davidson, Montague, Putnam (and the list goes on) on the various subfields of cognitive science.

...

My nigga

What's with everyone's obsession with being "useful"? Can't we do things for their own sake anymore. Not that I'm saying that philosophy is useless in anyway, just that it shouldn't matter whether or not it is, personally, the only reason I'm doing science is because I find it fun, and for me the most theoretical and impractical fields of it are the most fun.

Surrogate activities are a side-effect of living too comfortably

I'm saying that the actual development of those fields isn't done in philosophy departments. Philosophers can be really influencial and helpful, but it's a stretch to say that it was born from it.

Point taken that I may be going too far by stating that those sciences are born from philosophy. But I would argue that quite a few major developments are still done in the philosophy departments, although most are not. As an example, the computational theory of mind was largely developed by Putnam and his student Fodor.

In my country college is "free" which means people use my taxes to take courses to ponder if their eyes are real, when you use other people's money being asked what use you have is normal.

Please stop biting his bait

Sure, I mean, as a field or as a career, I wouldn't be able to tell you if philosophy is useful or not, but I think that it's absolutely essential as a means for self-improvement and development, which is why I'm bothered when scientist mock it, especially considering that philosophy was what started it all.

Yea, I don't deny that, but for some people, because philosophy is so broad and fundamental, it will always be "above" every academic subject and everything in general. The thing is they fail to see that the work they consider menial or robotic it's as, or even more complex than philosophy. I suppose it's because they don't seem to understand that what we call "philosophy" nowdays is much more specialized than before, and that there's nothing wrong with that because that is truw for every field.

naive realism is fucking retarded

In Australia, African families survive by taking useless courses. It doesn't even matter if they fail, they still receive welfare as a student AND job seeker, their fees are nonexistent due to scholarships for being a minority, their housing is usually paid in full or majoriry and they receive bursary and other awards.

It's literally better to sign up to a course, receive whatever grants and support surround it then never show up to class but still claim money.

Thank you, (((free college)))

do you even know what you're talking about bud or do you just spew buzzwords whatever chance you get

The latter because I'm a Ph.D in philosophy

>Can anyone explain to me what the use of knowing how to live my life is

So stephen hawking is a brainlet?
telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

A study of philiosphy will tell you never to trust a man who won't stand up to shake your hand

If he thinks that, yes

Not mentioning Bool...

> 1/12

> -1/12
Fix

Can you explain to me why I shouldn't eat you for sustenance?

Without using philosophy of course :^)

Why not?

Imagine going to college to study moral philosophy for years...

Jesus Christ. It takes someone that long to realise it's all subjective?

It's not subjective