The boom of science has left philosophy under-appreciated. Without practicing philosophy...

No, you're all in my head

>did you stroke out here?
what?
>Beneficial to what?
To myself.
>What is it to be beneficial if you don't know the single first thing about what you're doing
Surviving.
> what you are or whether the thing you're exploring exists or not?
If it allows me to reach conclusions that allow me to survive better then it doesn't matter if it's an illusion or not.
>If nothing mattered, you'd have no reason to continue doing anything
If nothing mattered to me, or a species, then I/it would die off.
>unless you admit that your self exists and the feelings it experiences matter.
That's the default choice.
>And at that point you've admitted that the exploration of the self and the things related to it is useful since your goals in life rest on those concepts.
No because it's the default. There is no exploration or philosophic thought here because it's the default.

You were talking about philosophy and physical results

>To myself.
Oh yeah? What's this myself? Why is science beneficial to it and what determines this beneficiality?
>Surviving.
Why is survival important to you when you've never even thought whether you exist anywhere outside of now? Why is survival a value in itself?
>If nothing mattered to me, or a species, then I/it would die off.
So what? Why should that happening bear some kind of meaning?
>That's the default choice.
One you seem to be aggressive against questioning
>No because it's the default. There is no exploration or philosophic thought here because it's the default.
Again, "the default". The default, as in enforced by who? Nobody said it's a default. If you never spend a single minute thinking about this, you can't know what "the default" is.

>philosophy and physical results
Are you implying they are mutually exclusive?
>Oh yeah? What's this myself?
Myself. My living body.
>Why is science beneficial to it and what determines this beneficiality?
Keeps me living longer, and hopefully my offspring as well.
>Why is survival important to you when you've never even thought whether you exist anywhere outside of now? Why is survival a value in itself?
Because if it weren't I would be dead.
>So what? Why should that happening bear some kind of meaning?
Because that's not surviving.
>One you seem to be aggressive against questioning
No I'm aggressive against bullshit. None of this bullshit has any benefit. You're just trying to flex your brain muscles over nothing. This is not philosophy because it offers no benefit. It does not come back to what matters.
>The default, as in enforced by who?
Living bodies.
> If you never spend a single minute thinking about this, you can't know what "the default" is.
I know it's the default because your bullshit is not the default for most of the living world. You ask someone off the street if they exist and if their motivations to survive matter then they'll tell you yes. The fact that we know it's important without thinking about it proves it's the default.

Unlike Philosophy, the Sciences answered many questions about the origin of life & universe.

Philosophy had more than 2000 years to answer deep questions. But Philosophy either come with bullshit contradictory answers or can't answer at all, letting the question open for centuries.

That's not true. Philosophy is completely solved but then some people don't accept logical answers and reopen the questions, making it appear that philosophy is pointless.

>Myself. My living body.
Do you think you're your body?
>Keeps me living longer, and hopefully my offspring as well.
Again, why does this matter? You haven't pointed out anything that lets us assume these things are desirable or that there's anybody persistent to desire them.
>Because if it weren't I would be dead.
And?
>Because that's not surviving.
So why is this a priority and a meaningful thing to you? Is it perhaps because of your personal experience? If you're not arguing against the existence of this phenomenon why are you arguing against anything exploring it? What makes you think you're working on the right assumptions when taking everything you feel at face value?
>No I'm aggressive against bullshit. None of this bullshit has any benefit. You're just trying to flex your brain muscles over nothing. This is not philosophy because it offers no benefit. It does not come back to what matters.
It does exactly come back to what matters - it answers exactly what matters. Without it, you can't know, you're just being blindly driven by your senses like a zombie.
>Living bodies.
Oh. How are those living bodies enforcing it?
>I know it's the default because your bullshit is not the default for most of the living world.
Calling a field of thought bullshit. You'll do great user
>You ask someone off the street if they exist and if their motivations to survive matter then they'll tell you yes. The fact that we know it's important without thinking about it proves it's the default.
Because? Can your senses and intuition never be wrong? If every different moment of your existence is a different you, can you say it matters what you do now when a different you will soon take over?

>Do you think you're your body?
I am me, yes.
>Again, why does this matter?
Because dying is bad.
>You haven't pointed out anything that lets us assume these things are desirable or that there's anybody persistent to desire them.
Do you even believe in objectivity? How can I give you reasons for survival being desirable if you're just going to constantly ask why in circles? If nothing matters to you then why are YOU consuming resources that would be better left to everyone else. How about you tell me what you consider to be objectively good or bad. What matters to you?
>And?
And what? I would cease to be a living being. In the future I would not be here. All that dies does not live.
>So why is this a priority and a meaningful thing to you?
Because dying is bad.
> Is it perhaps because of your personal experience?
Implications that I'm unique in my beliefs? What?
>If you're not arguing against the existence of this phenomenon why are you arguing against anything exploring it?
What benefit is there to "exploring it"?
> What makes you think you're working on the right assumptions when taking everything you feel at face value?
Because it works, and I see no better alternative.
>Oh. How are those living bodies enforcing it?
Through the desire to live and not die.
>Calling a field of thought bullshit. You'll do great user
Yes how dare I.
>Because? Can your senses and intuition never be wrong?
Sure they can. But we have to rely on them none-the-less.
> If every different moment of your existence is a different you, can you say it matters what you do now when a different you will soon take over?
Yes because the goal is to survive and not die. Unless you're telling me that I've already died.

How do I use philosophy to cure cancer or build a supersonic airliner? Oh right, all it can do is tell me I don't actually exist as a person. Fucking lol.

>I am me, yes.
Please no. Where in your brain are your emotions located? Can you inspect your emotions with physical tools? What do emotions look like? Do you look at a piece of brain tissue and say "look ma, there's some thoughts and emotions laying on the table"?
>Because dying is bad.
This is going back to "because I say so". Either you insist on these non-arguments or you have to come down to the level of dirty philosophers since having a view, any view, about this is philosophy.
>Do you even believe in objectivity?
I think it's highly likely
>How can I give you reasons for survival being desirable if you're just going to constantly ask why in circles? If nothing matters to you then why are YOU consuming resources that would be better left to everyone else. How about you tell me what you consider to be objectively good or bad. What matters to you?
Things matter to me because I've spent time thinking these questions and figured out most. I've reasoned why I must exist and what I approximately am. This lets me know what is meaningful to me, and it's basically the same thing as what intuition tells us - to experience pleasure. It's funny that you can come a full circle from ignorance to understanding and have your views become similar to what they were to begin with. But knowing what things are worth is great for a) my piece of mind b) the decisions I make. I'll post my model on the philosophy forum some time in the near future
>Implications that I'm unique in my beliefs? What?
Belief that you and your experiences exist
>What benefit is there to "exploring it"?
What I said above
>Because it works, and I see no better alternative.
The better alternative is to fully understand what you're dealing with and what implications your decisions bear, other than the superficial ones relayed to you by your senses and instincts

The premise is that you can't intuitively and blindly trust in things like "lol ofc I exist and of course it's me!" without first having a serious thought about it.

>to experience pleasure.
Yeah I'm done here.

philosophy is outdated in its purpose of explaining the world, but still feels it is relevant in areas where science/math explain things better, including why we act, or how we should act.

Evolutionary psychology, for example, describes why certain problems plague society way better than trying to think on the nature of man, for example.

At this point, all philosophy is really good for are questions that are ultimately meaningless because they don't have any useful expression (like questioning the nature of free will vs. determinism)

Yeah, it's definitely not that. It's to survive for no greater reason. You don't do everything in seek of pleasure at all, you do things regardless of whether they feel good or not, right? You seek net negative experiences as well?

You don't seem to realize this, but to say physical things are worthwhile is to already accept a certain philosophy. You seek pleasurable experiences through your appreciation of physics, don't you? In that case you should be able to not only prove that your physics works, but also that the meaning you assume really is there

Or, at least that there's good reason to expect the meaning to be there, as opposed to the alternative

>You don't seem to realize this, but to say physical things are worthwhile is to already accept a certain philosophy
you are illustrating exactly the point i'm getting at here

There is no philosophy that i can believe in that isn't going to make the world not-exist. If I reject the philosophy of science, the sun is still going to rise, energy is still going to equal the mass times the square of light-speed. All philosophy is good for, now, is splitting subjective hairs, looking for logical "gotcha!"s, which is exactly what you're doing.

It's funny that you believe in the objective world you only perceive through the distorted image of your senses more than the experiences you directly experience with absolute certainty. It doesn't matter where the sun rises unless you have a basic idea of the philosophical foundation you're building your values and beliefs on.

Just to add, refusing to accept or address these fundamental questions is to live your life in wilful ignorance and denial. This is the area science is also seeking to improve, yet for some reason philosophy is uncool and science is the new religion. They're both important, but refusing to acknowledge philosophy as the stepping stone to everything else is sheer ignorance.

>It's to survive for no greater reason.
We survive because the ones that did not are not living anymore. By process of elimination the ones that did not value survival, died, so only the ones that value survival are left.
> You don't do everything in seek of pleasure at all, you do things regardless of whether they feel good or not, right? You seek net negative experiences as well?
Correct, if they benefit my survival.

I fear I'm beginning to understand just how broken you are. I am sorry you are like this.

>has left philosophy under-appreciated.
only for brainlets.
I am learning formal logic and enjoying it very much, and am interested in taking serious metaphysics on the future

>It's funny that you believe in the objective world you only perceive through the distorted image of your senses
You entirely missed my point: the world is there REGARDLESS of whether or not I believe in it. There isn't any philosophy I can believe in that will ever make that not the case.

Prove it

>Correct, if they benefit my survival.
Because you seek to live as long as possible, because you want to experience as much net pleasure as you can. This is the base goal of any entity that experiences feelings, because such entities find these experiences intrinsically desirable for some fundamental reason.

>I fear I'm beginning to understand just how broken you are. I am sorry you are like this.
No need to be sorry for me, I enjoy arguing and have a healthy social life. I'm also capable of deeper introspection, something you clearly are pretty bad at

Cheers to another curious user. It's funny, there are numerous respected scientists who have dabbled in and been sympathetic to philosophy. My most respected modern persona (Ed Witten) for example has had many interesting talks in philosophical areas as well. Yet the general public scoffs at philosophy. I guess this is the power of herd mentality and lack of critical thought.

You don't make arguments for any of that, you just assume it's so.

i find it crazy how a lot of people are just taught to do it and never why

>Yet the general public scoffs at philosophy. I guess this is the power of herd mentality and lack of critical thought.
I was like that too until not long ago. Then I matured.

there's nothing to prove, "the universe exists" is an axiom you must have if you want to have any meaningful discussion.

Actually, "I exist" is the first thing you need to prove to have any meaningful discussion. But let's not get into that again. All we need to know is that it all starts with subjective experience, since that's the only kind of existence you will ever directly perceive.

>Because you seek to live as long as possible, because you want to experience as much net pleasure as you can.
No, that's your motivation to survive.
>This is the base goal of any entity that experiences feelings, because such entities find these experiences intrinsically desirable for some fundamental reason.
Pleasure exists to reward us for behaviors that are beneficial to our survival, not the other way around.
>No need to be sorry for me, I enjoy arguing and have a healthy social life.
You have a broken leg as far as the race of all lifeforms goes. Your life revolves around pursuing pleasure instead of survival. You avoid negative things if they're negative, and pursue pleasure even if it costs your future genetic lines their lives.
> I'm also capable of deeper introspection
I'm sorry but your thought process is pretty simple. "Nothing matters except for pleasure, because pleasure has the only objective benefit". That's very simply and not deep.

as a logician, I must agree with the axiomatic approach. Not every sentence can be proven, and if we take the incompleteness theorems we will see that in the English language there will be propositions that can'd be proven, either.
You'd need some axioms for any philosophy if you are going to be serious (formal) about it, and "I exist" seems like a good choice for a first axiom.

Definetly an interesting point of view.

do you really need a proof if no one ever actually considers the converse, literally just try living your life believing that hunger, guns, cars and the cold aren't real and you'll be dead in a week

Yeah, but how do you use that to build a computer or power your car? In fact, if that's so much more valuable than science, then what can you do with it at all?

>the Sciences answered many questions about the origin of life & universe.
LOL
No they actually haven't, and they know they don't know, it's only those like you who think they do.

>Without practicing philosophy, we can't even know if we exist.
Practicing philosophy, can we?

>No, that's your motivation to survive.
What intrinsic value does survival hold? None. If you survive but enjoy none of it, you might as well have not survived. If you survive but experience horrible pain all the way through, your survival is a net negative. It's not survival that matters, it's net pleasure.
>Pleasure exists to reward us for behaviors that are beneficial to our survival, not the other way around.
It supposedly exists since evolution formed it that way, but from OUR perspectives it's the other way around. We consciously seek to exist to chase pleasure
>You have a broken leg as far as the race of all lifeforms goes. Your life revolves around pursuing pleasure instead of survival. You avoid negative things if they're negative, and pursue pleasure even if it costs your future genetic lines their lives.
Yes, I'm not a mindless entity whose only intention is to reproduce. But the thing is, I can spend time figuring out the value of things AND surviving, at the same time.

I absolutely agree, everything is based on axioms. The point of philosophy is to observe our minds and existence and try to break things into smaller pieces until we reach the level of fundamental axioms. Philosophy resembles science in many ways, and perhaps one day it can be formalized further. Contrary to what people claim, it has already made meaningful discoveries, such as the widely acknowledged proof that "you" must indeed exist. Your existence is somewhat of an axiom, but not really. How's this sound: you experience your experiences right now. Those experiences must exist, since they're directly experienced by you. Since you are experiencing these things, you must also exist. This circular structure of you and your experiences couldn't exist if either of them didn't, so clearly they both do. Otherwise this phenomenon couldn't be happening. This seems to me like an acceptable argument for your existence, even though it's somewhat circular logic.

>Without practicing philosophy, we can't even know if we exist.
oh boy...the problem I have with your kind of philosophy is it's so god damned stupid it's painful to read
it's also becoming a norm - blithering idiots spewing out false data, just like the science quacking we have going on
what has been destroyed is accuracy - from those claiming or carting upon - religionists, scientists, and philosophists, MASSIVE ERRORS ABOUND, and the numeration of fools willing to remove all doubt seems to increase exponentially

"i exist" can't be an axiom without first acknowledging that the world exists

The problem with you is that your mind cant comprehend how small we are, and yet how important humanity is in the grand scale. Try reading some cosmic horror from Lovecraft or Chambers and then think about metaphysics, how the mind molds reality. youtu.be/7uKu3f6HiBI

Oh come on, if you want to know wether you exist or not, you just gotta count how many rings your wood has.

I guess the "proof" should still be sound despite the recursivity, because these things are experienced from one subjective perspective instead of an objective one. If one tries to debate the existence of either you or your experiences, it can be shown that they're wrong since you are "inside" the proof and can always show that the other exists as long as you can rely on the other that clearly fundamentally exists. "My experiences don't exist - but since I'm experiencing them, they clearly must. I don't exist - but since I'm here experiencing these experiences, I clearly must".

If nothing else, this "proof" highlights how the existence of "I" must be a fundamental fact.

Jaden Smith: 1, Science: 0

Attached: dbb.jpg (625x855, 63K)

If a mirror falls in the woods and nobody sees it, does it make a sound

depends on your definition of a sound

Scientists already know they exist, that's not something they need to philosophise over. What they do need to philosophise about is what they consider scientific, and what they consider non-scientific.

They need to think far more critically and stop with the deifying of "scientists" and "science" because you know what that turns them into? A religion, and one without any of the good parts.

If you want to see what "science" looks like at the top level, then look ow further than those at CERN: youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg

>natural philosophers of old: the arts and the sciences should coexist to create a more beautiful world, and it is also important to understand multiple fields of the arts and sciences to achieve a higher understanding of the world around us
>"scientists" today: hurr feelosophy is stupid science is the future :)
what happened?

Attached: 1507730202606.jpg (93x128, 5K)

Wow look at all these bites. Very nice bait op u r a masterbaiter for sure

>what happened?
We stopped using candles for light and horses for transportation, because as it turns out, asking ourselves "do we really exist?" for thousands of years didn't get us very far.

i love science neal degrass tysen is my hero

is math related to science btw?

>What intrinsic value does survival hold? None.
Collectively as far as lifeforms go, the value is the survival of all life. If you want to ask why and for what purpose life exists, then go for it.
>It's not survival that matters, it's net pleasure.
Unfortunate. Hopefully you mature from this some day.
>It supposedly exists since evolution formed it that way, but from OUR perspectives it's the other way around.
Evolution formed us this way back when we were far more primal. When the environment was far more hostile and death was far more common. We do not exist in that type of environment anymore. Our instincts, our pleasure triggers are no longer up-to-date. We must now consciously guide ourselves in the direction of survival through this new and foreign environment.
>Yes, I'm not a mindless entity whose only intention is to reproduce.
Mindless entities pursue pleasure. Conscious beings don't submit to their primal programming.
I'd like to point out that you seem to feel intellectual superior to the masses, and yet I'm not seeing how. You have the same motivations, the same ideas and backwards philosophy that the masses today have. You act like you've meditated on a mountain-top for half your life to come to this conclusion, but in reality you're just simplifying everything down as much as you can.

Can the philosophers in this thread name one result of philosophy that isn't just a shitty version of math or science?

Structuring and design of civilizations?

Smith's Mirrors Theorem

>claims to be a philosopher
>can't produce actual arguments
So this is the true power of philosophy.

>Without practicing philosophy, we can't even know if we exist.
If you're trying to convince me that philosophy isn't a bunch of useless crap you're not doing a very good job.

didn't see you making any arguments either my man. philosophy and science are for different purposes

t. brainlet
this is babby tier cartesian phylosophy.
The world is something experienced, first comes the "I", then the rest (even if it does exist)

Basic game theory and optimization.

another thing so fucking stupid - 1st of all I'm standing there alone with my eyes closed, I didn't see it, but i heard it....
>didn't even state the premise correctly A FUCKING RETARD AGAIN

2. yes it makes sound, the air hasn't been removed from the forest by your imaginary pixie who ass fucks you at night
>HOW GOD DAMNED DUMB ARE YOU PEOPLE?

Wait did you mean traditional philosophy ie the study and exploration to understand all things, or modern philosophy "do you exist do we exist what is existence prove my penis isn't in your asshole right now"?

>getting this angry at a lame joke
n-nani?

Philosophy is what idiots learn to impress other idiots

Logic, meaning and purpose. Philosophy keeps you on track. If a car is science then the steering wheel AND the road is philosophy. You can drive off the road but at as long as the road is still there you can get back on it. But if the road isn't there any more it doesn't matter where you steer, you ain't going anywhere. That's where modern science is at, but it's slowly starting to change a bit now as people are getting tired of having no road to drive down.

applied philosophy is cool

Give yourself a good poke. Physically at least, you're all there.

Literally all of that can be expressed by math a lot better.

Mathematics is the logic of quantity, it's a part of the steering wheel, not the car.

Yes, and everything in the world is a quantity. Every philosophical problem is a math problem expressed poorly. Why would anyone want to do things in a shitty way when they could do them in a precise way?

But what you consider as "quantity" must have some kind of philosophical reasoning to it for it to have any meaning to you.

In science, if you can apply quantity to something, then it must exist physically, correct?

How many hotdogs does it take to kill an average man? Hard mode: not shooting the hotdogs.

prove hotdogs exist

Science is a method for making for making better and more useful tools and predictive models. But science doesn't actually make any statements about what we know to be true, just what we found to be more useful.

Philosophy is what tells us what we actually know and don't know about the universe. It's sad that its so ignored in today's society, science and politics could benefit a lot if people were stricter and more consistent in their philosophy. We would get rid of a lot of baseless "facts" that way.

Philosophy as a tool is way harder to apply and use than science though, so its also understandable.

If philosophy rejects the scientific method, how can it prove anything? Wouldn't it just ask a bunch of pointless questions without any intention of ever answering them?

Attached: 1513877514784.png (396x430, 221K)

It doesn't reject it. It is just honest about what it can do.

99,9% of stemfags have absolutely no clue about philosophy, actually about anything at all, especially proper reasoning. They think they are so smart and then a baby introduction to philosophy and realize that they are drooling retards. It is quite amusing how drunk they are on intellectual pride just to realize they have been checkmated 2000 years ago, middle age philosophy is more than arcane magic for them and contemporary, its just unintelligible but not because of the authors, its the reader's inadequacy.

So nothing then, since it has no framework for proving or disproving statements.

Most STEM can't really comprehend anything but allocation of facts into a system.

Philosophy and Theology go directly against that notion.

>There will always be a divide, bae.

Logic and reason.

"Probably"

t. Theology

Without actual data you can construct equally valid arguments both for or against any position. So again, philosophy can accomplish nothing.

>Most STEM can't really comprehend anything but allocation of facts into a system.
They can barely comprehend their own sciences, it's why almost all of them end up being codemonkey brainlets. You can reduce them to just AI's,

Philosophy and science works together. As I said, philosophy doesn't reject science.

The earth is flat. Prove me wrong using your superior philosophical arguments.

Attached: 1491818050030.jpg (960x824, 73K)

>Without practicing philosophy, we can't even know if we exist

Attached: george says no.png (900x900, 603K)

It's kind of embarrassing watching philosophers shill their own field as some sort of king that stands above all science when absolutely no one in society cares about it.

Attached: 424.jpg (746x718, 214K)

Who cares

Why should I answer this question?

philosophy as always presented today
>a bunch of I feel empty inside whining feckless cunt crybabies none of whom know what it's all about
LOL
>why philosophy is down and out

>It doesn't reject it. It is just honest about what it can do.
Philosophy can't do Nothing
Philosophy answer Nothing
Philosopher know Nothing
Philosophy degree is worth Nothing

does posting still work? what do anons think: scientists have been shunned throughout history, but now science is (rightfully so) popular. can the same happen to philosophy?

You cant shun philosophy away. Basic foundations of science and mathematics are based on philosophical reasoning. The concept of numbers, the scientific method, etc did not arise from nothing. It was all rationalized by scientist-philosophers. There's such a thing as the philosophy of science / mathematics. Presently philosophy is currently being used to define a.i., the "mind", ethical implications of cloning and other new med technology.

well said user, I agree. both are necessary.