/lit/ - Literature★

>>8888

posted it because i felt his view was an apt representation of the average plebian view on philosophy.

>>8884 (OP)

>These early philosophers were forerunners of today's natural scientists, in other words, and one imagines that Tyson would treat them with the kind of condescending respect that scientists often reserve for their forerunners in the history of science.

>Philosophy rightly understood is the mind's rigorous, open-ended, radically undogmatic pursuit of this self-knowledge.

>>8892

It doesn't really represent his hypocrisy in dealing with spooks.

I dunno. I think you are looking to provoke a stronger stereotyped halfchan response, OP. Philosophy has always meshed into /lit/ culture, but the people here aren't too deep into it. I've seen some basic discussions along the lines of: "hey, this is an interesting idea," and an occasional link to decent undergraduate introductories of some philosophical system. High level advanced stuff such as valuation of entire systems of thought isn't likely to gain much traction, nor interest.

Instead of first order philosophical discussions, discussions of novels incorporating some philosophy appear to be more to our liking (and level of competence) here.

Ideology trolling might carry you further along, but even our resident /pol/ posters are a fairly laid back lot.

Good luck with it however.

>>8896

i wasnt looking to provoke anything, or even a particular response though i understand why you think that i am.

>>8888

checked

To be honest, I think it's fine for people to disregard philosophy and simply live.

However, to handwave it like Tyson does is fucking retarded.

Sure, he may be smart in the sense that he can do science, but I fear he overestimates himself in how valuable his words are. He should just shut up and go back to being black science man, instead of being black irrelevant opinion man.

>>8954

>To be honest, I think it's fine for people to disregard philosophy and simply live.

Same goes for the natural sciences, in my eyes. Seems to me that philosophers are a lot more humble about this than scientists.

>>8954

>Sure, he may be smart in the sense that he can do science, but I fear he overestimates himself in how valuable his words are. He should just shut up and go back to being black science man, instead of being black irrelevant opinion man.

This, so much.

>>9988

The Counter-Revolution of Science details really well what happens when natural scientists don't have even a peripheral knowledge of social sciences or philosophy. To cut a long story short, motherfucking worldwide communism happens.

>>8896

I think that's the way philosophy is meant to be approached really, as a supplement to other things. I'm probably on equal footing intellectually with the majority of the mid-educated parts of /lit/ in philosophy, and I can hold my own with philosophy majors just fine. Philosophy is important, but in the way that nails are important; they're an easy and effective way to hold things together, but on their own they're just sharp objects that'll take out your footing if you aren't careful.

>>9988

>needing reasons to reject statements

I bet you don't even accept them as free actions.

>>10044

You SURE you meant to reply to me?

>>10054

Not in specific, but if a scientist uses a mechanistic system or thinks hard about his system, he does so freely. Methodology and results matter to the world, not how some scientists are arrogant or think the wrong things.

>>10067

>Methodology and results matter to the world, not how some scientists are arrogant or think the wrong things.

Scientists being fucktards is pretty damn important. They can be philosophically illiterate, have no idea about social sciences and so on, but then they also need to shut the hell up, analyze quarks or some shit and not overstep their qualifications. If they don't, stupid shit like the positivist school happens and undoes a century of classical liberalism.

>>10075

If only philosophers never based their ideas on misunderstandings of scientific discoveries.

>>10077

What has that got to do with anything? Philosophers make mistakes when it comes to science, but they admit to using scientific knowledge and hence they can be corrected. Scientists, though (not all, but far too many) pretend that they weren't doing philosophy to begin with, which outright shuts down any criticism. Tell me, which one is more deluded and more harmful?

>>10078

Articles like in the OP, philosophers interpreting science without understanding it, and people talking like ITT about Neil are most of his contact with philosophy. When he says not to worry, this is philosophy by definition, but not by fact. You're taking things too literally, he probably didn't really mean not to think about it at all.

>>10121

i will be saving that picture, really illuminating.

> I'm not invested well enough on philosophy since I didn't study it

you really should at lest read the ancients, its pretty super stuff. dont believe the memes either, its about as hard as riding a bike without training wheels; its rather daunting initially, but once you get it, you got it.

at least read the enchiridion, for my sake. http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html