What does Veeky Forums think about philosophy?

Analytic philosophy: interesting
Continental philosophy: bullshit

The transcendental nature of space and time, The critique of pure reason

>philosophy
A lover of sophistry.
Biblio-phile. Book lover.
Sophist, sophisticated. Unsurprisingly, they have the same roots but one's seen as an insult; but the snobs want to be sophisticated.

Same as COP. Cop-out is a cop's-way-out. Cop-a-plea is making deals with criminals. Cop-a-feel...as it sounds. Cop defined is steal, take, screw and chew.
Funny how they babble and believe it means Constable On Patrol: even though every cop is called a COP. Funny, too, how we--and especially media--can insult them this way and they're too stupid to figure it out. No surprise here. Sometimes insulting someone is safer when they're retarded.

Philosophy is interesting.

>analytic/continental distinction

Cuck!

The distinction is real, and conties are retards.

The distinction doesn't exist to anyone who actually knows anything about the history of philosophy.

I know much of the history of philosophy, and denying a very real distinction is simply delusional. Continental philosophy is alchemy, analytic philosophy is chemistry. No contest.

The distinction clearly exists. That you think one is better than the other is the real problem because they aren't mutually exclusive.

More a problem of historian of philophy, than of philosophical works.

Debunked, get out of high school

You're a moron.

>Implying science isn't the greatest ally to philosophy.

Philosophy

"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Science

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Outdated and redundant.

It is just history now.

>Philosophy
Lo these men who sit at the right hand of the father claiming falsehoods. They would take the place of the left hand path, knowing not true sacrifice.

OK so what have philosophers determined about knowledge, reality, and existence?

Logic is always a good contender. Many formal logical fallacies arose from philosophical study. You could say that from this, the rigorous study of math was born.

I don't know why philosophy is still a thing, at first it was kinda proto science, men were trying to figure out the rules ruling the world, they are father of scientists, original philosophy evolved into science and I don't know why people saying shit like can't kno nuffin are called philosophers

This seems to be a question on the mind of many people in STEM fields, and I suspect philosophy has very little impact on those fields. However, as a student in cognitive science, the impact of philosophy is very clear given how under-developed cognitive science truly is. We know so little about the brain and the mind that studying them requires a lot of high level conceptualization, which philosophers tend to be very good at. So as an example of a recent contribution of philosophy, the computational theory of mind, which compares the brain to a computer, was developed by contemporary philosopher Hilary Putnam and Jerry Fodor.

Without engineering, science and philosophy are essentially the same thing.

What has philosophy determined though? You just said its a study of certain things. So what do we know about knowledge and reality from philosophy specifically?

they first vigourusly learn the basics of fundamental logics and reason, after that they turn to writing completely cryptic meaningless content-free nonsense 90% of which does not follow from their premises or arguments.

Philosophy is education for the educated.
Those who don't like philosophy, can't grasp the level of language used by those who take joy in using speech , and thereby writing, as a toy. An instrument that can play the most perfect of harmonies.

what I don't understand is how so many scientists haven't even looked into the philosophy of science. like why are you going through all this if you haven't even looked at the fundamentals of what you think you're doing

Why is the final degree called "Doctor of Philosophy?"

Answering that properly would require far too long of an answer. Read this shit senpai.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy#History

It's only appreciated by real artisans, and scientism memers will never be talented.

Science without philosophy is like a ship without a rudder.

>ship without a rudder

I've seen this analogy so many times. Is it a meme among philosophers? Are they doing it as an inside joke?

Logic and reason are sub-branches of philosophy, kid.

i literally started today.
reading plato dialogues like euthyphro.

is socrates a jerk or is he patrician?

is bertrand russel a pleb?

where to go after plato?

breadth of study is a legitimate issue with STEM education (and modern higher education in general). stop with the degree mills and bring back education for people who actually want to become knowledgeable or (gasp) wise

Nothing.

>why are you going through all this if you haven't even looked at the fundamentals of what you think you're doing

$

Read the Timaeus and the Theaetetus. Then start reading Aristotle's Organon. Try not to kill yourself while you do.

Bertrand Russell is a fucking monument.

Scientists don't have that great of career options though. If you're into dough, go into engineering, not science.

It's an accurate metaphor. Scientists cannot sweepingly dismiss philosophy without losing their direction and spewing worthless bullshit.

...

There should be some bbc's and a lot of jews and french faggots plus aids on the continental part of that chart.

Continental philosophy is garbage for the intellectually lazy.

While the whole of cognitive science is indebted to analytic philosophy, the only thing we can credit continental philosophy for are the marxist SJWs who pollute academic campuses with their retardation. Keep reading your existentialist fiction and thinking you're doing philosophy.

philosophy is good for fucking dumb hot chicks in college, and that's about all it's good for.

Philosophers may not know precisely how scientists do what they do, but, scientists don't know WHY they do what they do.

But at least scientists do, lmao

Is doing good for its own sake?

Most of the time? Yes.
Much better than not doing.

Unqualified doing is better than doing nothing? Ergo at times doing the wrong thing is better than doing no thing?

Yes.
Adolf Hitler did a lot of wrong things, but if he didn't do what he did, we wouldn't have had the technology to land on the moon in the 60's.

So even if some doing is evil by intent, *most* of the times the simple act of doing leads to something useful, whether that be by intention or by product.

If we just kill enough jews, anything could be accomplished?

Your conclusion might lead some to wonder if science was not a complete mistake.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Forget they Jews, they don't matter.
The only thing that matters is scientific progress, and I'll be a cock-nosed rooster if Germany didn't andvance science a LOT during the reign of Hitler.

What makes you think progressing science matters?

That is my belief.

If you believe otherwise, we will not come to an agreement on this topic.

Interesting... Did you arrive at that belief through some or another method? Was it conditioned in you? Were you born that way? Is it faith?

To clarify my post:

I'm not saying that my belief is true, only that at this point in my life it is a version of my own reality that I choose to subscribe to.

If you can also say that your own current belief is not true as well, we may have some fruitful conversation.

I don't propose a 'belief' here beyond philosophy asking why and science asking how. i am just asking questions, but, i think i've finished.

It hasn't determined jack shit. It's a bunch of self-obsessed, arrogant twats using logic, a tool grounded in pattern recognition and nature, to reach arbitrary conclusions to arbitrary starting conditions. A bunch of high verbal iq faggots who don't realize that patterns between concepts are embedded in how they are defined, and those definitions need to be grounded in observation to he meaningful.

Philosophy has made some very interesting observations about language. In linguistics at least, which hopes to develop a scientific account of language, philosophy of language has had a major impact.

explain more senpai

Is it really philosophy in the classical sense, or a logic-based science in its formative stages? All the sciences came from philosophy, but "pure philosophy" is just baseless running around in circles.

does philosophy have a single proof?

seems like astrology and homeopathy with words.

Got BBC's on the mind, do ya?

He says, having not read Heidegger ever.

Cognitive """science""" is a fucking joke. MRI scanning the brain and going "Look! This part of the brain fires up when you fart! Philosophy is worthless we get consciousness :-)" is not science, it's mysticism.

Also you're straight wrong, SJW liberalism is the cross of American analytic philosopher John Rawls, whereas continental philosophy's biggest star was a literal Nazi, and was so far right he got disgusted with the actual Nazis.

So you're wronger than wrong, you're that special delusional kind of wrong that's so wrong it's not self aware kind of wrong. I.E. stop posting and sharing opinions you uneducated fag.

Germany advanced science before Hitler, and America stole all of the talent.

>need to be grounded in observation :-)

How can you be sure of your observations if you don't investigate the medium they come in? It's like you're saying "you don't need to learn how microscopes work, those were solved ages ago by science, just use the damn thing" and then you get shitty blurry results.

The point of philosophy never has been to build a complete, perfect system. That's the delusion only an unsophisticated child can hold onto. The point is to attempt perfection, and then defeat each system, all while learning alot and gaining tons of wisdom at each step.

Like, you don't have any perspective on why your opinion is shit and you're irrelevant. It's actually kind of sad.

Whatever you think philosophy is, you're 100% dead wrong and should stop offering opinions.

Yeah, all philosophers unanimously agree that you're a retard.

>engineers
>having a single proof of anything

>chemists
>having a single proof of anything

Their science only "works" on the hopes and dreams of humans, proofs are for mathematicians.

im sorry?

philosophy is purely theoretical frameworks, just like mathematics...

engineers and chemists have a lot to show for themselves, bridges, airplanes, rockets, drugs, vaccines, fertilizer, plastics, lcd's, geez i could keep going forever.

Rather than namecalling, can you mention what philosophy has contributed outside of say civics, ethics, the stuff borrowed from 400BC Greece.

I'll give you the past 1000 years. In the past 1000 years what has Philosophy given the human race?

The works of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, all of which consitute massive insight and wisdom about all aspects of human life. I know you're really weak-minded and need to cling to the edifice of material wealth but there's more to life than manufactured products.

Also 99% of chemists couldn't even demonstrate that an atom exists, they're just dogmatically following rules told to them by someone else. Only the ones who really get into philosophy have any hope of not being wage slave cucks.

youtube.com/watch?v=V1gT2f3Fe44

Since you mentioned mathematics, here is a simple 3 minute clip showing why mathematics is the most important tool humanity has.

Do you have anything at all to defend philosophy with?

To you, no, because whether you find philosophy important is 100% as irrelevant to me as you are. In the meantime, look up people like Einstein when they talk about philosophy, if that's not evidence well then, you don't trust science out of your irrational dogmatism against something you're too stupid to comprehend.

so basically I need to read about 5000-10000 pages of Philosophy before I can really get it?

So it's bullshit then. I can distill any real science down into one or two sentences to show it's merit to a layman, whether it's theoretical or applied. When someone asks what did Einstein ever do? We don't call them retards or tell them to read a dozen books on relativity, we can sum up his contributions neatly and give examples of where and how he was tested and even where he failed.

All you can do is throw a word salad of names at me (which we have all heard mate, everyone knows _of_ those people, and most everyone on this board can vaguely tell you what their main themes were) I'm saying it's all fucking bullshit. You have nothing to show for it.

And you do yourself an intellectual disservice by not mentioning Marx, who was a greater philosopher than the ones you mentioned. Since his philosophy was actually applied in the real world. I guess you guys distance yourself from all that unpleasantness though right? Let the economists claim him.

But then again, when dealing with people who hide behind words and do nothing, what should I expect, but misdirection and obfuscation.

Clearly, the one who talks out his ass is you given how you have no idea what cognitive science is and simply think it's neuroscience.

Also, Heidegger is clearly an aberration in continental philosophy. It's clear that SJW nonsense is rooted in Marxism.

falsifiability

>whether you find philosophy important is 100% as irrelevant to me as you are.

Your inability to defend it should matter to you, for the sake of intellectual honesty.

>you don't trust science out of your irrational dogmatism

I trust science because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.

>you're too stupid to comprehend

calling someone stupid for challenging spurious assertions shows both a lacking moral fibre and a deep insecurity in one's own chosen field. Just like the psychologists who remind you they're a science also because they use probability distributions and experimentation.

>look up people like Einstein when they talk about philosophy

what Einsteins personal opinion was about something is irrelevant to me. Science doesn't care about opinions, emotions or beliefs. We look at facts and data. I couldn't care if he believed in flying space monsters, again an appeal to authority is unsound, haven't you taken your logic course yet? that's 1st year shit....

>Hegel
>Schopenhauer
>Nietzsche
>Heidegger

Please don't quote these retards when defending philosophy. Continental philosophy is the BuzzFeed of the field.

Also, you clearly don't understand science, so stop pretending you're some sort of free thinker. You're simply ignorant.

*shrug* good shitpost

Calling philosophy worthless is literally on par with calling chemistry worthless. It's so obviously wrong it doesn't need defending.

It's only "obvious" if your sole source of education on philosophy is metapedia. To people with educations, you're a conspiracy theorist.

Continental philosophy is fine and the "divide" is amped up more by philosophical outsiders than insiders. The ignorant people shouting opinions about philosophy are a dime a dozen, people well-read are rare.

>I trust science because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.
I trust randomly guessing because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.

Until you can defend science as being more than a stream of lucky guesses (that's not what I truly believe, this is what's called rhetoric, just saying before you unleash your autism) I'm gonna laugh.

>calling someone stupid for challenging spurious assertions shows both a lacking moral fibre and a deep insecurity in one's own chosen field
Kek what a spurious assertion. I like how you took the specifics I said and framed them as a timeless truth. Disingenuous, wrong, shows a lack of moral fibre.

He didn't even mention popper in his name dropping list, anyway falsification is a bit of a red herring imo. Nothing can ever be proven true or false wholly, science is always in an approximate state of information, imperfect, incomplete. The only thing you can reliably predict is that you're probably wrong about a lot of things, but for practical purposes you keep what works and try to keep discovering.

As a rule of thumb it's useful, but it barely plays any role in modern research. I don't have an underground supercollider to test and attempt to refute the LHC findings. There is a large degree of implicit trust and given the current state of ethics in the peer-review process probably naive and unwarranted trust put in people with financial interests closely tied to their unverifiable output.

All of the hard sciences are in a state of crisis, have been since the birth of modern computing allowed us to make larger more accurate telescopes and observe much of the universe is dark. But it will resolve itself because we keep what works.

My problem with philosophy is that someone like says this without any hint of sarcasm. When we both know how rigorous and mundane real philosophers get with their definitions and creating air tight arguments.

How about you actually defend it, coherently. See that way I can attack your defense, and expose the flaws in your thinking.

Except that I study philosophy in college. However, I am not of the opinion that the role of philosophy is to be culturally relevant. The role of philosophy has been from Antiquity to understand the world's phenomena, and only in the past 150 years have conties decided that this was no longer what they were doing. Continental philosophers simply want to write literature, and that is precisely all they do.

No, people within the field still very much dislike continental philosophy.

>what Einsteins personal opinion was about something is irrelevant to me. Science doesn't care about opinions, emotions or beliefs. We look at facts and data. I couldn't care if he believed in flying space monsters, again an appeal to authority is unsound, haven't you taken your logic course yet? that's 1st year shit....
Science absolutely cares about opinions, emotions, and beliefs, and if you cant see how blatantly emotional and petty sciencr is theyre youre blind and delusional. I think you have an improperly overblown view of science and your understanding of it is tautologically poor: simultaneously anything scientific thats false youd call science, and anything unscientific that works youd call science. You dont actually understand any method of truth-seeking or inquiry, youve simply defined post-hoc that anything useful is scientific.

>No, people within the field still very much dislike continental philosophy.
What a stupid generalization. Some departments do analytic, some do continental, some have no divide, some do. It's not easy to generalize and is a complicated subject, but don't let that cloud your pseudo-understanding.

It wasn't a generalization, I said that people in the field dislike continental philosophy, but I did not mean all people. This was a response to the claim that the continental/analytic divide was exaggerated and came mostly from outside philosophy.

I like how you admit science has serious flaws, and yet dismiss philosophy which is the literal tool you use to analyze science. Like you're doing philosophy in this post and are completely lacking self awareness.

That's true though, it's hugely exaggerated. Maybe at your university people cared more?

That's very possible. I used to go to a French language university where there did not seem to be much of a divide, but in the English speaking school I now attend, continental philosophy is very much on the back seat. I can tell you that for me, the courses I took in continental philosophy really drove me away from it, especially after studying Frege and Hegel. I find that these authors especially present little more than a work of fantasy and claim it's philosophy. I hear good things about Husserl though, so my hope would be to read him some time soon.