>>11405140I'm British but I would bet that top American universities probably teach the same breadth of philosophy that I encountered at university.
But it's still all completely useless for answering questions about the nature of reality.
>>11405144>Philosophy can answer questions about the nature of realityNo it can't, for the reason I gave before: mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.
To find out what reality is like, you have to test it. And that's called science. The philosophical branches of metaphysics and ontology are completely redundant, because all they involve is SPECULATION about what reality is like. But science TESTS what reality is like. Science arrives at truth, and philosophy, at least for these questions, is fucking useless.
>Materialism does not even realScience has indicated that we can explain everything with material explanations.
>>11405145Philosophy can't answer those questions, for the reason I gave before: mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.
To find out what reality is like, you have to test it. And that's called science. The philosophical branches of metaphysics and ontology are completely redundant, because all they involve is SPECULATION about what reality is like. But science TESTS what reality is like. Science arrives at truth, and philosophy, at least for these questions, is fucking useless.
