/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11221414

486KiB, 640x742, XlAzbGq.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 01:06:26 2019 No.11221414 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11221416 >>11221664 >>11221765 >>11221774 >>11221783 >>11222694

is this accurate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 01:06:39 No.11221416 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221414
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 01:29:58 No.11221492 Report

Quoted By:

Math and Philosophy's foundations are equally grounded. From them, science became what it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 01:54:19 No.11221522 Report

Quoted By: >>11221544

No, it's a one of the biggest fallacies philtards keep spouting. The word "philosophy" historicaly was used as an umbrella term for what was deemed in some sense as academic topics. Basically to become (taking some liberties with the actual meaning during different periods) an "academic" you were required to become proficient in a number of topics that are nowdays considered fields of their own. Now some of these fields, for some reason, were identified as what we know call "philosophy" I believe about the time the scientific revolution happened. This fields obviously are related to the other fields in really important ways, but they arw not in any sense a direct product of these.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Plato.png, 157KiB, 800x600

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 01:56:54 No.11221524 Report

Quoted By: >>11222512

No. Stop watching cartoons and stop building heroes out of poetical and otherwise fictional characters.

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___fglpmfwfrprpfkjjw9zzt (...).jpg, 231KiB, 1280x720

El Arcón Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:01:16 No.11221530 Report

Quoted By:

>is this accurate?
Absolutely

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:08:33 No.11221544 Report

Quoted By: >>11221571

>>11221522
Why do you ignore the evidence of Plato, Socrates, et al.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-12-08 at 11.03. (...).png, 599KiB, 1416x952

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:11:09 No.11221555 Report

Quoted By:

SEETHING

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:21:02 No.11221571 Report

Quoted By: >>11221574

>>11221544
What evidence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:22:22 No.11221574 Report

Quoted By: >>11221619

>>11221571
That they existed and did philosophy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 02:48:48 No.11221619 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221574
I don't want to be smug because I know my writing skills are pretty shit, but I have no fucking clue how you got that from my post. My point was that the term has changed it's meaning, not that they never did "philosophy".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 03:11:09 No.11221664 Report

Quoted By: >>11221692

>>11221414
Yes. Philosophy ultimately contributes very little to our knowledge today or to human wellbeing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 03:26:53 No.11221692 Report

Quoted By: >>11221698

>>11221664
>human wellbeing
It provides explanations for the meaning of life and it provides solutions to moral problems

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 03:28:56 No.11221698 Report

Quoted By: >>11221770

>>11221692
>It provides explanations for the meaning of life

No, it doesn’t. Life doesn’t have a meaning.

>and it provides solutions to moral problems

Doesn’t do that either. Moral problems are solved by emotional intuition, which is primal and has nothing to do with philosophy. Moral truths aren’t real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 04:02:15 No.11221765 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221414
Yea

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 04:04:23 No.11221770 Report

Quoted By: >>11221836

>>11221698
Both your two assertions are philosophical positions that are not ontologically more valid than their inverses
The statement "life doesn't have a meaning" is not true
The statement "moral truths aren't real" is also not true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 04:06:48 No.11221774 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221414
No

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.jpg, 53KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 04:10:11 No.11221783 Report

Quoted By: >>11222520

>>11221414
NO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 04:35:32 No.11221836 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221770
>Both your two assertions are philosophical positions that are not ontologically more valid than their inverses

Wrong.

> The statement "life doesn't have a meaning" is not true

It is.

> The statement "moral truths aren't real" is also not true.

It is. David Hume disproved them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 12:22:30 No.11222512 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221524
>Stop watching cartoons
It's a metaphor. The medium used is not relevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 12:26:08 No.11222520 Report

Quoted By: >>11222536

>>11221783
How the fuck is physics applied math lmao? You cannot construct physics like you do math, you have a bunch of other constraints, and presuppositions. Even the most fundamental bit of math, provable statements are true, is not true in physics.

They use math, but the subject isn't math. It can't be reduced to just "the math" of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 12:38:46 No.11222536 Report

Quoted By:

>>11222520
>expecting biologists to understand the nuance between physics and maths

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Dec 2019 14:31:00 No.11222694 Report

Quoted By:

>>11221414

I literally tear'd a bit at seeing this.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches