A hawaiian stemlords take on philosophy

Hes right about interpreting marx.

That's literally just math. It only sounds weird and "philosophical" when you describe it with words.

Attached: 1500907291938.png (1080x1190, 572.25K)

HILeftReview is referring to discussions with people like AW, so you couldn't be more wrong about that accusation.

Yes.
Physics tells you something about global warming, so knowing physics and talking about this hot topic gets you branded an insane political extremist I guess. Philosophy is a really vague term, you probably include musing about politics in that (as would Aristotle). The way HLR talks about it he has a more narrow view of it, for him you can talk about politics by researching stuff = doing political science, and what remains of philosophy minus that is mostly posturing and word games. I don't see why I should have respect for people doing philosophy when most of it amounts to pretentious huffing and puffing, repetitive gestures of having superior intellect, with basically fuckall to back up, no new vaccines, no beautiful planes to show off, no new exciting sturdy and light materials, no clever programs, nothing.

I have tried some philosophers and they all suck ass (inb4 "but the scene around my guy is different!!"). Heidegger was a Nazi. You know what Kierkegaard is like? Imagine Calvin from the strip Calvin and Hobbes (well there is one good thing inspired by philosophy after all I guess) getting depressed as he grows up and becoming a batshitinsane and extremely sexist hikikomori. That's your Kierkegaard. How about some Leibnitz:
"Bu-bu-but he also did math!" Bubububuttfuck yourself. As if any of you philosophyfags who ever bring up that some people who did philosophy among other things did indeed to other things than philosophy (those other things being the reason why people give a fuck about them) ever take that as inspiration to learn about these other useful things.

That's Antonio Wolf AKA Anal Water the Pseud.

Attached: MaoistvsAW.png (681x648, 164.13K)

FFS Zig Forums.

Your autism is showing.

Attached: article-0-0ED59AA800000578-590_468x361.jpg (468x361, 39.38K)

IMO the problem with applying philosophy in the modern day is that philosophy is most commonly understood in the way that it is encountered/practiced in academia. The problem specifically lies in the structure of your average academic organization, in which there are a multitude of incredibly specialized departments that all fall under the umbrella of 'humanities'. Disciplines such as sociology, political science, and economics are in many ways applied philosophy. So if most of the different forms that philosophy has taken as it has been applied to certain real world issues have been arbitrarily separated from "philosophy" proper, then the domain of the academic philosopher has become increasingly confined to as you say, word games and thought exercises. I imagine that an academia that wasn't so laser-focused on careerism would lead to less specialized academics who would be trained in both science and philosophy, but that simply isn't the case in much of the world today

Attached: 2a4ee60ef26d76f4056285169d07cd139ec3353e8e21ca7f503ab81382940e83.jpg (500x705, 309.42K)

I think most philosophy of ontology or epistemology or whatever is pretty esoteric and generally not that useful, but I'd just say that I agree with the guy above me that there are a lot of fields that are basically "applied philosophy" which are necessary, and are necessarily a bit muddled and up to subjective evaluations that aren't based in any objective facts beyond deciding how you're going to make your measurement and collect your data. But what precedes that is basically subjective philosophical voodoo. This clearly isn't as present in something like physics.

Found the issue, AW isn’t philosophically minded.

Why do STEMfags always feel like they have to justify their ignorance? Socrates had the right of it: Don't pretend to know things you know shit about.

Real life assburger.

Why are you taking such an instrumental attitude to philosophy. Fields like phil of mind have and continue to be used in the development of AI. I have other examples of you want. Also, yeah Leibniz isn’t exactly the most politically charged philosopher. But I don’t see why Heidegger being a Nazi makes him philosophically incoherent. If someone said “Marx sucks, he’s a communist” would you let that slide?

Also your account of Kierkegaard is pretty shit. It’s (to evoke this again) like when people talk about how Marx was le looser who never had a job!!!

Logical positivists cannot be Marxists.

Stop with Analytical Marxist bullshit (aka not Marxism), is it just a coincidence that with the bigger dominance of Anglo Saxon thought Marxism has been more and more irrelevant?

Someone here said after Marx philosophy is no longer needed, that might have some truth in it, but Marx did undergo a philosophical process to get to dialectical thought which is fundamental for a Communist, people who try to read Marx ignoring Hegel (or, today, Zizek) will never be Marxists. The only way to criticize philosophy is through phisolophy, so get off your high horses take your head off your assess and read some damn books.

Why would you even concede this? It's a completely fraudulent claim, as seen by the fact that user didn't even try to justify it.

Le rational science men strike again!!11!!1!

logical positivism, like everything else to come out of Vienna's intellectual "schools", needs to be taken out back and shot. Or in this case, shot again, since no serious academic has unironically uttered the words "epistemology doesn't exist/isn't relevant" in over 60 years.

He looks cool tbh

Philosophy is a 100% necessary but it is also probably the biggest risk factor for faggotry. It's what leads to pacifism and "It's all subjective", etc… Nothing wrong with thinking, but it's a risk factor for retardation.

Philosophers are always trying to "solve" philosophy too – look at Wittgenstein. Look at Nietszche and Hegel. Look Heidegger. Or look at anyone claiming to be a last prophet or enlightened one, hell.

Silly scientists forget that philosophy is used to make scientific cases, to form hypotheses, to set moral / ethical bounds on research, and is a huge driver of the skeptic movement.

Some of those even think they can throw away ethics plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1204x334, 180.34K)

that's not philosophy it's mysticism

sounds like ur awfully sp00ked m8 did u flunk ur formal logic classes?????

maybe he picked it up from his teacher
linkedin.com/pulse/does-philosophy-end-hegel-dr-ken-foldes/

You know idpol is straight-up continental philosophy right? Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, all of the bullshit that porky uses to defend himself comes from the philosophical school of bourgeois decadence. Positivism is quite a bit like empiricism and is skeptical which means that it accompanies ```scientific socialism``` and well-suited for despooking society from its Christian and capitalist superstitions. "Analytic Marxism" is also known as "non-bullshit Marxism" – if you don't like it – sorry buddy, you like bullshit.

in German Ideology, Marx used the phrase "practical materialist, i.e., the communist". How the hell are analytic philosophers not "practical materialists" …..

right, that's all philosophy 101 stuff.

no.

Read more philosophy. Liebniz is shit. read Kripke

I might be argueing on semantics here but there are mathematical philosophy, Scientific philosophy, natural philosophy (which I consider to be the same meaning as the word "Science") and other empiricalist philosophie that he conveniently leave out in the set of philosophies that is implied by the word philosophy. This subset is important to how we think about the world and the basis for how we go about with data and such.
Otherwise I do agree some forms of philosophy is more or less mental masturbation.

Then again science has double meaning. One which is the rhetoric and the persuasion of speech to a unknowledgeable person on a particular study (part of the reason why we have flat earthers.) and the former that I mentioned.

You know idpol is straight-up continental philosophy right? Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, all of the bullshit that porky uses to defend himself comes from the philosophical school of bourgeois decadence. Positivism is quite a bit like empiricism and is skeptical which means that it accompanies ```scientific socialism``` and well-suited for despooking society from its Christian and capitalist superstitions. "Analytic Marxism" is also known as "non-bullshit Marxism" – if you don't like it – sorry buddy, you like bullshit.

in German Ideology, Marx used the phrase "practical materialist, i.e., the communist". How the hell are analytic philosophers not "practical materialists" …..

You know what else comes from Continental Philosophy? MARXISM, there's no Marxism without german ideology.
"Practical materialist" can mean any shit you want, so you either explain what you mean by it or don't use that bullshit phrase. Usually it just means playing around formalized concepts, incapable of actually thinking new thoughts.

I guess I'd try to escape philosophy if I was a petty booj scientist who was confronted with either pomo nonsense or the only valid modern materialist philosophy, Marxism. Can't go with pomo because it makes no sense, can't go with Marxism if you're petty booj.

math is philosophy, and quantum physics is not "literally math." quantum physics is the attempt to find deeper/lower-level abstractions for matter. which is an inherently philosophical endeavor. much of quantum physics is based around probabilistic reasoning and the understanding that a "thing" has multiple forms and states, and can change between them under certain conditions or even seemingly at random.
Big surprise, Marxism-Leninism is the world-outlook best suited to explain society in light of the advances in material science which expose these deeper, many-sided abstractions.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

/r/ing that screencap of user explaining why Marxism is scientific.

you're retarded.

if you think vulgar positivism or empiricism are valid philosophical positions, you can in no way lay claim to being a marxist/materialist/communist/etc.; if you had read anyone who calls themselves a marxist, or, you know, marx himself, it would be blatantly obvious. the rejection of anglo-empirical reductionism is a KEY aspect of literally all marxist theory.

That was a misquote on my part, I was replying to that.

Maybe you did the same too xD

A reminder to Stemfags:
1. You're doing philosophy by engaging in the scientific method.
2. All of applied methedology descends directly from philosophy.
3. You're all fucking retarded when you're not in your own field, see Ben Carson and MDs as a species for examples.

Attached: 25152276_523868101319388_2092659914905972337_n.jpg (720x660, 31.12K)

it's true
any higher education should require a passed exam on Marxism Leninism

Daily reminder Anal Water is a UFOfag.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZccrTmfvaKQ

I just can't fucking stand his voice.

Real talk: Stem students should be able to at least write a good essay about their own field without ever once resorting to vulgar materialism.
I.E: "My experimental results mean something because I confirmed them so they're the truth" kind of shit.

lmao sorry your meme degree isn't working out for you

reminder to all philosofags: science is better than classical philosophy because it's an applied form of philosophy, that moves us beyond theorizing and guessing to quantifiable testing, model development, and empirically based changes in thinking and understanding.

This is like saying IT is better than Newtonian physics. Ignorant.

You just engaged in philosophy and poorly by one deriving an ought from an is and two asserting a hierarchy without a system to justify it.
You just engaged in philosophy by implying that application OUGHT to be considered hierarchically superior to intellection.
You just literally invoked a philosophical school of thought by name

No one is saying science is somehow worse than philosophy but science "objectively" derives from philosophy. You need an entire ontological system before you can theorize, and once you can theorize that's still just philosophy (logic) until you test it at which point you're STILL completely reliant on your ontology.

The two disciplines are completely inseperable, application grew from theory and to try to divorce it therefore is like an infant still on the umbilical cord trying to move out and get a job.

He puts you to sleep.

Not that. He comes off as a narcissist in love with his own voice.

its correct that science is philosophy etc etc STEM people should know humanities
humanities majors who can't math and only know about the natural world through through osmosis are still fags though.
you're both incomplete.

Decent take

Makes sense. In his reading and commenting videos he does 90% of the talking.

Attached: chadrationalist.jpg (2047x788, 223.37K)

cultish

It's usually late at night my time when we record, so I come in tired and can't think as well. Sorry

RationalWIki are democrats pretending to be scientists. LessWrong are literally shills for a scam to get people's money.

Unironically this. Marxism Leninism is literally a science and any "scientist" who doesn't know and understand it is not only an embarrassment, but a danger to himself and everyone around him.
-t. STEMfag

I know son, they horrible

There is only one philosophy, the weak shall be ruled by the strong, that is all.

Is it possible that maybe, saying philosophy is uneeded when it's literally the basis for scientific methodology and inquiry is a retarded opinion to hold?

hawaiileftreview.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/science-vs-philosophy-part-ii-philosophical-objections-to-the-scientific-method/

MORE HOT TAKES

Attached: David Hume.jpg (346x380, 44.2K)

us > them

...

I agree with this guy. What the left really needs is absolute science

Attached: absolutescience.gif (884x725, 89.41K)

What the fuck, nintendo?
Fucking reggie fist-a-me

This is beautiful. Usually fedoralords stop short of criticizing maths (the M in STEM) but this guy couldn’t help but go full-hog and tip his fedora into a black hole. Guess he must have realized that pure maths and philosophy actually have much in common.

I'm a total brainlet, but I guess for the sake of my own understanding I'll try at this.

The problem is that just because a statistical modeling system is incredibly good at mapping the likelihood of various events that can occur in a given system, (likelihoods that are attained through various kinds of induction e.g. rule-induction, grammar-induction, etc in the case of a machine learning system) this does nothing to alleviate the criticisms about any sort of induction since the criticisms about induction are largely about how induction does not provide real "knowledge" about one's conjecture, rather it has only shown that your heuristic for a certain problem works well (to the extent that you've used it). In short, it only demonstrates a correlation and not a causation, and as a result you don't have the needed logical structures to explain why every component of your hypothesis is true i.e. a complete proof.

Attached: edgelord2.jpg (179x445, 43.89K)

Spare me. Computer science, math, and neuroscience are being used in the development of AI. Philosophers of mind are stuck in an isolated intellectual ghetto claiming that qualia exist.

this tbqh famalamadingdongeroos

...

...

Fuck off AW

Good shit

If math is phylosophy, everything is phylosophy. Physics is math, programming is math, chemistry is math.
Youre doing exactly as leftreview said, fucking with definitions so no meaningfull conversation can be held. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy.

Newtonian physics are wrong though, so IT is bettter.

WEW
E
W

Not necessarily.
That's true.

Except in the field of philosophy, you do kinda have to argue with them. If you disagree with Heidegger's philosophical work, much of which is unrelated to his politics or ethics as a field, you should be able to argue for why he's wrong and not simply close your ears because le bad man is talking.

Just to add: It is perfectly possible to be wrong on one thing and right on the other. Even if someone's politics and worldview is shit, that doesn't mean their thoughts on, say, hermeneutics are wrong.

you haven't read a fucking real book on AI , didn't you ?

>If ethics/politics is big part of your concept of philosophy, then it's weird to follow Heidegger as a lefty. If it's just all about the lame rhetorical tricks for you I'm not interested in that.

-_-;

What exactly do you find valuable in Heidegger?

whoa whoa whoa, don't confuse the chicken and the egg there ☭TANKIE☭.
Philosophy is nothing but logic, which is grounded in Mathematics.

...

Except that is not at all what you said, and your idea that somehow "everyone is a philosopher" just because philosophy actually deals with subjects that are relevant in some way is farcical. It's blatantly obvious that the only thing you know about Heidegger is that he was a nazi. One of his main interests was hermeneutics, that is how you understand and interpret a text, and his idea of the hermeneutic circle has been applied in everything from literary criticism to the social sciences. The idea that his thoughts on that subject are irrelevant because he wore a swastika is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

...

Science itself is literally a philosophy.
The idea that running society without value judgments is possible, or even logically coherent, boils down to when people are too stupid to understand bias and that their values are not objective facts.

Attached: actualscientistsvs.fedoralords.png (1716x1710, 2.93M)

...

Now that's a great philosophy

Attached: WrKPhfd.gif (200x200, 1.83M)

Fam, you're just repeating yourself at this point. Come back when you can make an argument

Attached: 082ae5e243db98405a54d07f5d68abec05624b78914032482fda5f706665bf0a.jpg (1024x1024, 68.88K)

You're not refuting my point. Why can we not criticise useless semantic intellectual masturbation? It is counterproductive.

Because it is not just useless semantic intellectual masturbation, that's the whole point. At this point, it is the supposed "rational" scientists who are stuck with their heads up their asses. There is no intellectual field or method that is not deserving or needing of criticism, and they are not listening to it.

hmmm….

Attached: support superman in his struggle against american imperialism.jpeg (616x894, 96.67K)

Why are STEMlords pathologically illiterate? Philosophers criticize philosophy and even the entire field of philosophy itself all the time. Scientists and philosophers of science criticize the epistemologies and underlying philosophies behind different scientific approaches all the time.

Science itself can be seen as a self-critical sort of philosophy. Philosophers themselves understand that there is a difference between asking questions like what is the meaning of life? Or what will make us happy?What is justice? And trying to understand bio-chemical processes.

So, it can be said that science is to a certain degree a philosophical endeavor whereas there are philosophical questions that aren't strictly-speaking scientific. You should actually be applauding those philosophers and there are many of this type who are actually attempting to use science (however unsuccessfully) to answer or reformulate questions that have been considered to be outside the domain of science.

I've never seen anyone online use this phrase where it didn't mean "big words and complex sentences are hard" rarely have I seen anyone use it in a real life academic context where they actually made a real point.

As far as "masturbation" goes, Marx didn't mean that philosophy was bad when he said it had the same relation to life as real love. He was only saying the time was coming where the goal of philosophy is to change the world rather than interpret it.

Although Marx was a scientist he also had a keen interest in philosophy (he got a "meme degree" in it) and literature. While he likely wouldn't think much of modern philosophy which largely but not always addresses bourgeois concerns, I doubt he would have anything nice to say about the vulgar anti-philosophic "mechanical materialists" ITT that he wrote against in his own time. Reminder that Marxism is both a science and a philosophy.

Dawkins is (Afro)-British. Literally a white nigger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Btw how much pseudo-intellectualism is Nye on when he says "or what you sense or feel is not authentic"? This is literally a relic of 19th century scientific ideology that no self-respecting scientist would say today. There are many things in reality that your senses cannot render accurately. Radiation for instance is one of those things we can't perceive or feel but nonetheless exists.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: analytic philosophy.png (498x516, 435.77K)

But what if everything you see including instruments are not real? Bet you didn't think about that huh? Better keep pouring over whether or not reality is real instead of realizing it doesnt fucking matter.

What did he mean by this

...

But how do you know whether reality is unknowable or not?