Is philosophy dead? Why or why not? Please no memes

It finds knowledge good enough. Unlike ever changing and undecided philosophy.

You don't not understand the world. You understand scientific models that allow you to make predictions. That's it.

Knowledge is a human invention

>use
You just presupposed some philosophy right there.
Science is all wrong, so no you know nothing.

Irrelevant philosophical psycho babble pls. stay out.

Btw science is also ever changing and undecided

If science is all wrong Mr. Pseud explain how You are posting on the 4chinz now.

If the science behind it was wrong you couldnm't do it :v)

science tells you how, philosophy asks why.

Wrong and you're still presupposing a philosophy.
Wrong. Pseudbabble.

>w-w-wrong
I see you have literally no arguments. Reminder that it would only take one zero or one to be wrong in the bios code for you to be unable to post on the 4chinz brought to you by Science.

now go shine your shoebox

>LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING!!
Your value system is unfounded, logocentrist

>objective truth
>it finds knowledge
>Science

i know the american education system is not worth much without deep pockets so you're probably only partly to blame, but it would take only the tiniest bit of 101 epistemology and phil. of science to not to come across as mentally limited as you do now.

>And this has also outdated and overruled a lot of philosophy of the past 2500 years.
Funny you say that considering that greek philosophy was also a cutting edge science at that time

Really makes one ponder eh

OP here, I didn't ask you faggots if science or philosophy is superior

Well, actually, science and philosophy frequently work in tandem.

Medical ethics and environmental ethics are great examples

It isn't and It can be the most refreshing and exciting moment ever to philosophy. The only real problem is that analytical thinking, especially in usa, led to most works stand on a heavy science implied base, which in turn diminishes philosophy itself. It's a brand New form of positivism and altough it's better Than before, it is, still, defining.

Counter intuitive progression in the physical sciences increases the need for philosophizing, it doesn't diminish it. It's like you people have been living in a cave for the entire past half century of philosophical history

Philosophy has always been about serious issues. And science was the same, because, well, they were one. Now - since science has to recognize that it can only aim at phenomenal knowledge, we should ask the real question : is science dead ?
Don't take matters upside down, OP.

>separating philosophy from science

>arguments are good
Ideologue.

>hurr muh empirical observation confirms induction and empiricism in general
Sense organs observing sense organs.
No value system is founded.

sciencie is basically the new philosophy

And you do? Epistemology has provided no certainty at all.

wtf is pseudobabble? A statement is either babble or it isn't.

learn how to read
it was pseudbabble, the babble of pseuds

Good job, fellow Feyerabend and Kuhn poster.

Show these brainlets how retarded they are.

Fair enough but you should learn how to form an argument.

I said pseudbabble not pseudobabble. Pseudobabble would be ironic babble, which is just shitposting.
Why are arguments good?

>Why are arguments good?
You criticize people for debating over minutiae but you want to dive head first into it yourself.

I still do not see your point.

>is science dead ?
No

philosophy will never die, the fuck kind of question is that
no it didn't you fucking pleb

Kuhn is ideology.
wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/kuhn-o28.html

I love these threats where uneducated plebbois criticise philosophy for not being a science. Lmao

>all these pseudos implying that philosophy is no longer pertinent because muh science
How the fuck do you expect to reach transhumanism without logic and ethics?

Philosophy is dying (especially in the USA), along with free thought and real problem solving. Everyone only does what was told to them or runs with the de facto standard, rather than analyse and contemplate why that problem existed and how to address it.

What does science tell you about ethics? What does it tell you about political theory? What does it tell you about the scientific method itself?

It's raw data my friend.

>especially in the USA

Should we really give a fuck about US philosophy? And has the US ever produced a good deal of great philosophers?

Look at Europe for the real deal, leave the anglos in their meaningless, childish world.

What does philosophy tell you?

It tells me that Europe is to blame for literally everything wrong with the world.

It doesn't give you the objective truth, but it shows you an approximation of it, which is the best we can get.

Science can't even begin to approsch these questions, and positivism has failed. This is all the tools we've got as humans, it seems dumb to me to discredit them only because their results can not be analyzed with microscopes.

What would your alternative be?

>Look towards to people that killed philosophy stone-dead
I'd rather look at Asian philosophy at this point.

post approximation

What a great argument.

My approximation is meaningless in this debate, and would only derail this conversation.
The point here is that this approximation is literally the only tool we've got.

>My approximation
you said "an approximation" now you're implying there are several

>scientific method
>object-ive Truth

We ask the question of being and move from there.

A 50% and a 60% approximation yelds different results, this applies to sciences too, were a scientific model and its improvement have vastoy different implications.
Yet you can still point a flawed argument in philosophy, which is what makes philosophy a non-randomic discipline.

To say "my approximation" does not mean that I think that all approximations are equal in value and insight, I'm just being modest about the amount of datas and reasoning my approximation is based upon.

>50% and a 60%
what the fuck are you on
>a flawed argument
how do you decide whether an argument is flawed

>what the fuck are you on
Stop being so prdantic, you know what I'm talking about. You will never get such estimates in science and philosophy, yet they gives the idea of some gradual improvement.

>how do you decide whether an argument is flawed
>what are incoherent arguments?

>you know what I'm talking abou
no I don't how tf do you fit different ethical philosophies into percentages
>>what are incoherent arguments?
I don't know tell please tell me

>no I don't how tf do you fit different ethical philosophies into percentages
I have fit different approimations into percentages.

>I don't know tell please tell me
Either you're baiting or you're too ignorant to have a actual philosophical debate. I'm here to disuss, not to teach you the basics of debating. Read a book or two and come back. Have a nice day.

Ehh, not really.

It's more that modern philosophers are all essentially realist materialists so they may as well just be scientists. Actual philosophy has a much greater breadth than that.

>Read a book or two
what if I read two books and they disagree
>Have a nice day
don't tell me what to do bitch

Yes pic related

>the call that ended philosophy

>It doesn't give you the objective truth, but it shows you an approximation of it, which is the best we can get.
Objectivity doesn't exist. Philosophy goes nowhere when it tries to be subservient to STEMshit, or tries to be STEMshit. There's a special pit in hell for you submissive traitors.
>incoherence is wrong because muh will to truth says so

>Objectivity doesn't exisy
that's just your opinion

>phenomenal knowledge,
science has nothing to do with phenomenology, since nothing is experienced by scientists, beyond what any man can experience.

>objectivity doesn't exist

objective statement

>Objectivity doesn't exist.
Objectivity exists, but it is barred from us, which is exactly what that user was saying when talking about approximations.

>Philosophy goes nowhere when it tries to be subservient to STEMshit, or tries to be STEMshit.
Science can't reach objectivity either, at best it can give us a good approximation of reality. Regardless, science can't ask those questions in the first place, so it doesn't make sense to imagine a competition between these 2 macro-fields.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little Other? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the École Normale Supérieure, and I’ve edited numerous Continental philosophy journals, and I have over 300 published dissertations. I am trained in deconstruction and I’m the most sought-after speaker in the entire Francoshere. You are nothing to me but just another cognitive scientist. I will wipe you the fuck out with signifiers the likes of which has never been seen before on this so-called "natural world", mark my fucking signifiers. You think you can get away by misquoting Hume like that over the Internet? Think again, sophist. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Lacanians across the student body and your poorly argued undergraduate essays are being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your "philosophy". You’re fucking Dead, kid, like the author is dead. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can debate you in over seven hundred ways, I'd say that's fairly rhizomatic. Not only am I extensively trained in debating techniques, but I have access to the entire Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy - one of its editors is a close friend, and he gave me the electronic version on a USB - and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the Continental scene, you little Oedipus. If only you could have known what Jouissance your little “clever” essay was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have kept your fucking "logic" to yourself. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re seeing the dialectical reaction, you goddamn Analytic. I will shit Foucault quotes all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, Bertrand

No, it is my will.
Nope.
>but it is barred from us
Wrong, it doesn't exist.
>approximation
Not at all, all there are is delusions.
I'm not analytic.

Bro if you think philosophy has nothing in common with science, you aren't even entry-level. You have gone around telling your buddies why drugs are good/ bad and that's as "philosophic" as you've gotten.

>No, it is my willy
not an argument

The philosophers who are like scientists aren't the best ones. Their analytical approach bogs them down in nonsense, and when they realize later that there was a hole in their logic they didn't think of? They still publish.

>Is philosophy dead? Why or why not?

It isn't dead as such, but currently awaiting another Copernican Revolution, or 'explosion' if you prefer, à la Kant/Nietzsche/etc.

Nietzsche was the last 'big' philosopher, so to speak. The 20th century didn't, and the 21st century hasn't yet, produced a philosopher of such scope/insight as to have permeated our (intellectual) culture to the same extent as yet.

If you think we have become "unphilosophical" or in some way more stupid over the past century or so, then ol' Nietzsche comes to the rescue with some words of comfort:

>"Bad! Bad! What? Is he not going - back?"
>"Yes! But you do not rightly understand him if you complain at that. He goes back as everyone must who is trying to take a great leap forward."

>Nietzsche was the last 'big' philosopher, so to speak. The 20th century didn't, and the 21st century hasn't yet, produced a philosopher of such scope/insight as to have permeated our (intellectual) culture to the same extent as yet.

Freud and Jung.

haiku

perfect moon.
dead,dead,dead,Nietzsche too.

>Freud and Jung

I said philosophers, not psychoanalytic hacks.

>he derives is from ought
HA

>man = experience
k

There are some interesting contemporaries around, and there's no definite with science. It's still heavily dictated by original philosophical principals with its desire to "define" observable reality. Our perspective may be all wrong, blah blah blah, there's also no argument for the advancement of science, for any argument for progression is presupposing some axiom that doesn't exist. It's all rather subjective and therefore allows philosophy to stay relevant.

which is exactly what I meant by "phenomenal knowledge"

no one gets that THIS is the answer...

philosophy is wondering about life using thoughts

until that is somehow outlawed then how the fuck could philosophy be dead

In academics there's no progression though, no huge figures since Nietzsche to be considered or debated. Nothing has been added to the field in like a century. I'm wondering the same as OP, are we in some post-philosophy age where there's simply too much information and too many distractions for anyone to care?

>no huge figures since Nietzsche to be considered or debated
I really should stop thinking I'm talking to people on Veeky Forums on equal footing.

tonight I'm realizing this pretty definitely as well, its time to hang up the hat

Reminder that philosophy has "died" multiple times throughout history. Reminder that Nietzsche was born in a time where philosophy was "dead," after the political failure of Hegelianism, and where scientism was dominant. Philosophy bros, there is still hope. One day the next Nietzsche/Wittgenstein will come, one day.

much of philosophy is an attempt to replace religion.
desu if anyone wants to read philosophy for the purposes of living they might as well join a church it's a lot simpler and it makes you feel a lot better.
i'd say philosophy is too broad to be blanketed as all worthless though, i wonder if the person capable of sieving what's actually worth anything exists though.

in b4 stoicism. elaborating on common sense and composure to hundreds of pages is fucking stupid.

Please guide me into interesting contemporary thinkers that address modern (hard) science, such as quantum physics for example.

I'd really love to read.

This
Philosophy has been "re-discovered" many times before and it will be re-discovered again

but neechee is terrible.

Humanities are just nonsensical rambling. Science actually does something.

Knowing the earth is flat and everything you learn in school is fake bullshit for the slave masses who only need to know how to work

You do realize we came to the scientific method trough humanities, right?

The ego in this post should be turned into a rap. It would be so easy to do.

You do realise you're on a literature board

You could at least have tried by saying Wittgenstein and Heidegger, or memed with Zizek, Chomsky, Foucault, derrida and Harris

Stay mad and keep reading your stories in hopes of ''understanding human condition'' or whatnot.

Yes, even people like Zizek who cry about dialectic push rhetoric at every opportunity