66acfd No.593
ITT: Talent-less hacks
I'll start with an easy one
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.596
Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, "New Atheists"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.597
Hegel, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger, Derrida, zizek, etc
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.598
>>597>zizekI don't even think he counts as a talent-less philosopher, he's more like a slightly amusing homeless man
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.599
>>597>I'm still a logical positivist 70 years after it was disproved>so analytical>muh logicFunniest thing is how all those philosophers clearly stated what was wrong with the analytical project before it even became the popular philosophical paradigm, yet nobody seems to care since reading them is overrated.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.601
>>599zizek does not belong on that list, he is a total fucking fraud and a plagiarist
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.603
>>597Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, the entire Vienna Circle, Whitehead, and anyone who uses "mathematics" and "philosophy" in the same sentence.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.604
But Sartre was a goofball though:
>Existential phenomenology is pretty cool
>Needs a self-understood subject though
>Existence precedes essence
>Heidegger, "That's some inauthentic Dasein right there"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.607
>>599>>603Analytic philosophy is the basis of the scientific method and modern science. Continental philosophy is the basis of modern humanities, the way for people who flunked elementary school mathematics to have an academic career.
Obviously, the latter is the choice of winners.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.609
>>607Devise a scientific experiment that can test whether the scientific method is the best way to determine the truth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.610
>>607>I've never read anything about the philosophy of science past some articles on PopperIt's also funny you claim analytic philosophy is the reason modern science works. The only thing analytic philosophy has even remotely to do with modern science is logic for programming. That's about it.
I use to be a "muh logic, muh science" egghead, but man, once you get that continental dose…you just can't go back. I just can't stand analytic philosophy. To me it's just one of the most worthless of epochs in philosophy along with scholasticism. Continental philosophies, however, are going to be remembered through the ages because of the material they deal with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.613
>>609what are the alternatives?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.614
>>610i am a muh evidence guy, which is rather like the two you mentioned, and i'd be really interested in hearing what continental philosophers you started with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.615
>>613Anything and everything else. Continental philosophy, religion, art, literature, fortune telling, and so on
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.616
>>615>>610alright
>get a box>put thing in box>give box to particulars of different methodssee who guesses what's in the box correctly
is this not what you're looking for?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.620
>>616This is just what I was looking for. I'm the
>>615 (You) anon since this board has no ID's. So we hold this experiment, and we have the following people show up:
1)A doctoral candidate in material physics
2)A Roman Catholic bishop
3)A Theravada mendicant
4)A romantic playwright
5)A structural semiologist
The material physicist shakes the box around, listening to the rattling. He presses his nose up against the box and sniffs real hard. He pulls out some instruments to measure electromagnetic waves, radiation levels, and the weight of the box.
I presume it is a two pound sphere of depleted uranium due to yada yada yada.The bishop gets on his knees, resting his head and hands on the box, weeping with joy.
It is a miracle! Saint Peter appeared to me in a vision, on Good Friday, with the revelation that a stranger would gather men of wisdom around a sealed box. Within this vessel will be a holy relic, as he would transubstantiate into the item and make it his body. The mendicant crosses his arms and shakes his head.
Trick question. There is nothing in the box, and there isn't even a box! What we call the "world" is ignorance and suffering clouding our mind. One who has achieved Buddhahood would not even see the "box" or whatever is "in it".The romantic lays down on his side and just stares at the box for forty five minutes.
It is the sublime. Look at this scene: five people have been pulled away from their professions simply to behold and ponder the contents of this box as a test of their aptitude. No, more than that! At stake is their professions themselves! The hidden item induces us to stumble over ourselves in taxing our talents to divine its identity. And the moment it is to be revealed, we will stand before it like a bachelor gazing at his sweetheart's mouth, waiting for her to accept or reject his proposal for marriage.The semiologist doesn't look at the box even once, instead lighting a cigarette and saying he doesn't have time for this and needs to get going. But he offers you this:
What is inside the box is the box itself. Why do we refer to that receptacle as a box and not a cubical piece of cardboard? Because a box holds things. So what makes something a box or not is dependent not on how it is made, or what it is made of, or who made it. It is the fact that the box anticipates itself in conveying to us not just a capacity, but an essential identity, as a holder of things. It is the uncanny truth that the box is actually the object being contained, and not the receptacle we see. Without the object inside, or at least the promise of an object inside, or the promise that objects have been and will go inside, there is no box. Only cardboard. Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.621
>>616>guess what is in the box correctlyTherein lies the philosophical problem of science. How do you justify demarcating something at all. Thomas Khun noted along with prior continentals that science blindly presupposes an epistemology and metaphysics of which it is proud of being ignorant. If you were to keep up with the highest highways of scientific debate you'd know it is a lot of debate on what the right methods and theories are. You look at all the shit reported to to us in pop sci and you think there is a consensus of what things are. There isn't, and it's very clear once you look into alternate theories. Many theories that are philosophically FUNDAMENTALLY opposed can predict the exact same observations and tell us they completely different phenomena.
So what IS in the box? It will depend on what you believe existence and its history is, something we have limited information about. The fact of the matter is that facts are for the most part contingent on idealized theory. To mistake theory and model for fact, and to ignore the plurality of theories that are consistent with the same observations, is the biggest mistake of scientism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.624
>>621This is
>>620. Interesting, it seems you were more concerned about what would qualify as a scientific method, where as I was concerned with what qualifies as ontologically correct.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.625
>>624I'm more concerned with the exposition of hidden presuppositions. I'm here influenced by R.G. Collingwood's concept of absolute presuppositions, which place the metaphysical and epistemological issues in a landscape similar to castles in the sky. One must assume and assert their metaphysical and epistemological principles, yet no rationalization could ever be given. It is useful for us to know our own foundational biased assertions if only to grant us a view of how truly incoherent we generally are.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.626
>>625Well that was exactly I was doing, but I deferred to Paul Feyerabend (basically took Thomas Kuhn, and the philosophy even more radical). My request that logic anon "devise a scientific experiment that would determine whether the scientific method is the best way of determining the truth" is taken directly from Feyerabend's words.
The point being that it is impossible, since in order for a test to qualify as a scientific experiment, the test has to be structured so that the scientific method would be rigged to succeed over other methods. Thus, science can only justify itself tautologically. To say that "science is the best way to study the human body" relies on a subjective human to evaluate the results of science and find them to be most conducive to the initial reason for engaging in it (improving medicine).
So methods are validated not by inherently clinging to the Truth better than any other method, but by fulfilling a method-employing actor better than any other method in a given pursuit. In my example with the five experts, the material physicist is the guy to go to for guessing what is in the box (but that's because that question rigs the test in favor of him). For the test to be truly method-neutral and a fair test, it would have to be "Put an object in a box, and ask what the Truth what is in the box is". If you do that, all of the five experts have equally valid approaches.
According to Feyerabend, all methods operate by designating what questions are "sensible" and which are not. Because of this, people are seduced into marveling at the past successes of a given method, and (according to Heidegger) are incentivized to expand the use of that method into other areas of their lives by "enframing" the debate in terms only the said method can answer.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.628
>>626>Feyerabend met David Bohm and was highly influenced by himThat's enough to make me like him. Bohm's own interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is one of the best real world proofs of the plurality of theories that satisfy observation, yet almost no one knows about it. It makes me so goddam angry at the philosophical and scientific world.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.667
< this guy
He's pretty smart, but by no means an advanced thinker.
Here's hoping he surprises me towards the end of his life and writes something that blows everyone's minds. I'm waiting, Ken.
>>593
>implying she wasn't a brilliant writer
>implying Atlas Shrugged isn't a masterpiece
>implcockying The Fountainhead isn't a masterpiece
>implying being second in sales only to the Bible - and more than every other philosopher put together - is not a big dealIt's cool to be a h8r and all that, but credit where credit's due.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.669
>>603You, dear anon, is clearly insane.
Ignoring philosophy of mathematics is absurd in any kind of metaphysical system, any such system MUSY contain mathematics to be consistent and minimally viable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.670
>>669Modern mathematical logic isn't working for understanding or modeling the world as it is. Formal logics are all failures, dead end abstractions for merely mechanical machines to use. To confuse the structured logic of math to be the same as the logical structure of reality is naiive analytic philosophy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.672
>>670>implying math is reducible to logic.picture merely illustrative.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.677
>>669I'm the anon from
>>603 (This board needs IDs)
>in any kind of metaphysical systemWhich is why you dispense with metaphysics
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.680
>>677i don´t know if i understand what you mean.
Sorry.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.684
>>680You said that metaphysics without math is absurd, and I ask why that in turn is a problem.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.685
>>684Oh, i see.
Metaphysics without any consideration on the essential part mathematics has in our most basic thought patterns is shallow, i mean, how can we forget about the place of mathematics in the "hard" sciences like physics or chemistry or biology? we can´t, its too intertwined, so, an metaphysical system MUST have a account on mathematics to be consistent.
I mean, WHY is mathematics so essential to understand the laws of nature? its not about how, but WHY it does work.
Any metaphysical system without such an explanation is seriously lacking.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.689
>>685I definitely agree with you on this. Since your discussion with me originated with my post here:
>>603, let me just say that my problem is not with mathematics, but the attempt by some to make Scripture the idea that any thought process not conducted mathematically is not worthwhile.
Almost always those who hammer in the importance that math, reason, logic, etc. have in thought end up attacking modes of thought which do not follow those lines. Note how the word "irrational" is no longer simply used to indicate thought other than reason, but is also used so as to give off the message that extra-rational thought is something horrid which, really, we should strive to abolish.
And at this point, I would refer you back to the posts regarding Feyerabend and his critique of the scientific method. So to summarize, I don't discount the value of math, logic, reason etc., but my experience has unequivocally been that those who open up with championing those traits end up lambasting that which does not abide by those traits.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.711
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.716
Sartre, Derrida.
Carnap. Popper.
Searle, Chalmers
>>603
>Disliking all my favorites;_;
>>599Ive read them thoroughly. I still like them despite their mistakes. Wittgenstein was totally spot on tho, no mistakes from him.
>>610Giving programming to the analytic tradition is just the benefit hindsight.
>>667Your waifu a shit
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1153
>>593I could even respect Ayn Rand as a philosopher if the method in which she used to define her philosophy wasn't such fucking trash.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1471
>>716
Seems to me like everybody is a "Talentless hack" to somebody else.
Even though most of the philosophies under ridicule ITT have yet to be fully evaluated we all engage in one giant exercise in begging the question to make ourselves feel clever about our own pet beliefs.
Also Logical positivism was a noble failure.
Don't knock it, but give Russell's ghost a good shoulder rub and say "Well at least you gave it a go."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1482
>>603
I only agree with you on the Vienna Circle, they're shit, but I will respectfully disagree about Russell, Wittgenstein, and Frege.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1483
>>610
Same here, I was a huge Russell and Wittgenstein fanboy (still kind of am) and had a disdain for continental philosophy. Then I decided to bite the bullet and actually read some of it...Sartre's "Transcendence of the Ego" is what started my path towards the continental tradition. I began to realize that a lot of the continental arguments are actually pretty strong, it's just the jargon that puts people off.
I still like analytic philosophy though, but I'm no longer a snob about the continental tradition. There's a lot of good stuff there.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1511
>>1483
I wouldn't consider the late Wittgenstein an analytic philosopher, though the ways he tries to work around it are highly interesting in their own right.
But you've definitely hit the nail on the head when referring to the jargon. Analytic philosophy is brilliant in terms of formulating and thus unambiguously sharing arguments. It is inherent in their approach. In contrast, continental philosophy needs to rely on persuasion, evocation, intuition, consensus or essentialistic principles of understanding in order to function as philosophy. And while this is still facinating, it cannot help but feel stuck between analytical philosophy and unreflected observation, ideally being the best of both worlds, but in the eyes of many rather being an inferior application of the former upon the latter.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.1513
>>1511
Analytic philosophy isn't really clear, that's just a fact. It's autistic, and overly symbolized for no reason other than elitist posturing. I've not ONCE seen an argument that wasn't one pertaining to logic itself that benefited from formalization. You think continentals are vague with jargon to hide their empty arguments. Guess what they think of analytic jargon? The exact same thing. Overly verbose and formalized jargon hides what in reality are stupidly simple arguments that can just be stated in normal language and in simpler terms. Jargon is just part of the intellectual traditions across time. Shit like Kant and Hegel seem impenetrable to us, but in their time most intellectuals knew the jargon and had little issue understanding.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66acfd No.4713
Bump! I'll save you thread!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
835f2d No.5737
>>711
nah only atheists are faggots, unless you're Nietzche. why do you think they love sucking a robot dick all time. heaven only knows when no one is looking they prefer it anally rather than orally.
that also being said, Bertrand Russell needs to be set on fire.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
835f2d No.5738
>>685
what makes you the judge of that?
>>>>r/iamverysmart
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6f9d52 No.5754
>>607
agreed ignoring the sarcasm. Analytical philosophy is der juden incarnate
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c037c No.5797
>>1153
I'd like to see you do better.
I'll wait to read your Philosophical principles and precepts, how they compare to Objectivism how your ideas are formulated and presented.
You criticise Ayn Rands method of defining Objectivism yet you fail to present one simple example of evidence to back up your statement.
It appears the method in which you have used to define your judgement is and I quote
"fucking trash".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
56a06f No.6240
>Olavo de Carvalho
Think Zizek, but right-wing and, as most brazilians, absolutely pussywhipped.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.