Explain philosophy. What is the appeal. Why learn it? What does it do/what value does it add?

[incel194012940]

the questions are all pointless, 0 value added, 0 changes because

everything is abstract and based on clever word combinations in your head. You can’t actually change your opinion on something by wording it differently enough times. There is no way to know if you are right, you can’t verify beyond looking at your work, consensus doesn’t work because no one agrees.

Despite this

it’s based on either reading 1000+ pages of material or enough reddit stack exchange and YouTube to larp reading that

“Wittengenstein, neizche, platonic object, lebiniz”

Despite debates going on for literal thousands of years no one seem to care about settling these issues with fact or approaching with another perspective even though every single thought you could have about it is already catalogued in an 50 volumes encyclopedia

I see learning this as a way to practice pure thinking skills but why would this be taught as a major discipline and something of value. What are these general thinking skills applicable to if not even to solving the problems they’re used in?

or why you would larp and do copy paste in debates, or want to be a philosopher if you don’t have the special kind of brain that likes it

 

[looksmaxxed]

philosophy is used to solve moral dilemmas. the problem with philosophy is that anyone can participate, whereas in stem fields, you need to actually know what you're talking about. so philosophy has been over the years inundated with irrelevant bullshit mental gymnastics from insane people.

 

[JackTheKnife]

the problem with philosophy is that anyone can participate

Very few are relevant.

 

[rl⠀]

it's a great cope when you meet these requirements:
- you are too dumb and/or ugly and/or awkward to work with anything concrete/tangible/quantifiable (science, engineering, math, finances/trading, law, even fucking real estate and sales)
- you still desperately want to be perceived as an intellectual because of your deeply ingrained complexes
- you need a replacement for not getting laid

 

[incel194012940]

philosophy is used to solve moral dilemmas. the problem with philosophy is that anyone can participate, whereas in stem fields, you need to actually know what you're talking about. so philosophy has been over the years inundated with irrelevant bullshit mental gymnastics from insane people.

i can see that. Want to object on if that’s possible but it would be an implicit philosophy

has philosophy ever been used for that in a society as the primary deciding factor? Not just as something to mask the exercise of power - assuming there is a right solution to any given moral dilemma (I only know the trolley one)

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

In this thread, you will see clowns who have not read a SINGLE philosophy book critique philosophy

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

philosophy is used to solve moral dilemmas. the problem with philosophy is that anyone can participate, whereas in stem fields, you need to actually know what you're talking about. so philosophy has been over the years inundated with irrelevant bullshit mental gymnastics from insane people.

Not true.... Try publishing BS in philosophy journals.

 

[incel194012940]

In this thread, you will see clowns who have not read a SINGLE philosophy book critique philosophy

I downloaded a book to my kindle 7 years ago I stopped reading after page 10 because it was boring, but besides the point, serious question

please explain to me in your own thoughts

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

it's a great cope when you meet these requirements:
- you are too dumb and/or ugly and/or awkward to work with anything concrete/tangible/quantifiable (science, engineering, math, finances/trading, law, even fucking real estate and sales)
- you still desperately want to be perceived as an intellectual because of your deeply ingrained complexes
- you need a replacement for not getting laid

You do realize a lot of lawyers have philosophy background ?

Philosophy majors scored sixth best in terms of LSAT and GPA scores. They were also admitted to law school at a higher percent than any other major — 75 percent, according to an analysis of data provided by Muller. Religion and religious studies majors, by contrast, had a similar LSAT score (158.8 compared to 158.2) and a higher GPA score (3.35 compared to 3.47). But only 65 percent of religion majors matriculated into law school.

Classics, Philosophy majors do best when it comes to getting into law school

Classics and philosophy majors post the highest LSAT scores and GPAs, outperforming other majors in law school admissions data.

nationaljurist.com

 

[incel194012940]

You do realize a lot of lawyers have philosophy background ?

Philosophy majors scored sixth best in terms of LSAT and GPA scores. They were also admitted to law school at a higher percent than any other major — 75 percent, according to an analysis of data provided by Muller. Religion and religious studies majors, by contrast, had a similar LSAT score (158.8 compared to 158.2) and a higher GPA score (3.35 compared to 3.47). But only 65 percent of religion majors matriculated into law school.

Classics, Philosophy majors do best when it comes to getting into law school

Classics and philosophy majors post the highest LSAT scores and GPAs, outperforming other majors in law school admissions data.

nationaljurist.com

isn’t that guy a lawyer

 

[rl⠀]

i can see that. Want to object on if that’s possible but it would be an implicit philosophy

has philosophy ever been used for that in a society as the primary deciding factor? Not just as something to mask the exercise of power - assuming there is a right solution to any given moral dilemma (I only know the trolley one)

i've said this already, but if philosophy was so potent, mathematical notation and the idea of reproducible scientific experiments would have never arisen in our society - people/philosophers would just pull the laws of nature out of their subconscious without ever needing to move a finger, and concepts of formulas and equations would never appear in our collective thinking because they would be completely unnecessary. has this been the case? no, obviously.

and the more time passes, the less potent and valuable (and more fucking pathetic) trying to frame the world with mere words and lame verbal gymnastics becomes.

there's more actual wisdom in the works of shakespeare, milton and lord byron than in thousands of pages of (almost completely randomly generated, despite its authors being unaware of it) books published by pretentious philosophers with IQs of average tiktok influencers.

P.S. i see @OGJBSLAYER (again, what a cringe generic fucking username) replied to this thread ... when evaluating his posts, don't forget that he is completely incapable of even solving raven's progressive matrices designed for 100 - 115 IQ people and has probably made 0 £ in his lifetime with his brain.

 

[OCDisneyChad]

To slay jbs or to not slay jbs that is the question.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

BTW, the idea that philosophy is pursued by people who cannot study hard-core STEM subjects is a joke

The greatest philosophers throughout history were trained in mathematics and science

From Leibniz to Russell.... the list is endless.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

isn’t that guy a lawyer

He isn't lol ... No lawyer has the time to rot on incel forums 24/7 and stay drunk

I doubt anyone would hire this retard to defend his/her case

 

[incel194012940]

He isn't lol ... No lawyer has the time to rot on incel forums 24/7 and stay drunk

I doubt anyone would hire this retard to defend his/her case

incel forums are high iq philosophers only

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

i've said this already, but if philosophy was so potent, mathematical notation and the idea of reproducible scientific experiments would have never arisen in our society - people/philosophers would just pull the laws of nature out of their subconscious without ever needing to move a finger, and concepts of formulas and equations would never appear in our collective thinking because they would be completely unnecessary. has this ever been the case? no, obviously.

What the fuck are you talking about ? Empiricism and positivism ( which you are espousing) is just one philosophical position amongst many others. This only proves the usefulness of philosophy.

and the more time passes, the less potent and valuable (and more fucking pathetic) trying to frame the world with mere words becomes.

So instead of using words to describe problems in metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics, we should use mathematical symbols ??? Once more, what the fuck are you even on about ?

there's more actual wisdom in the works of shakespeare, milton and lord byron than in thousands of pages of (almost completely randomly generated, despite its authors being unaware of it) books published by pretentious philosophers with IQs of average tiktok influencers.

You can read both literature ( plays, novels and poems ) and philosophy books. Shakespeare and Byron, unlike you, were well read when it came philosophy.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

@incel194012940

Remember this

Source :

 

[Crusile]

Zero point and almost everyone finds it extremely ANNOYING and boring unless you reverse engineer their arguments to sound based/cool. read @Reconstitution 's post history, hes a new forum intellectual. he told me its all about rhetoric, nothing else matters

for example, liberal intellectual spread annoying talking points about racism, "bigotry", sexism when they could make it sound more epic/cool by simply denying the existence of sex and race with science/biology

 

[Aypo129]

I like the beef here
I like philosopy too
Cant say much if you havemt read it

 

[Aypo129]

@OGJBSLAYER vs @rl⠀ remains top tier

 

[Aypo129]

BTW, the idea that philosophy is pursued by people who cannot study hard-core STEM subjects is a joke

The greatest philosophers throughout history were trained in mathematics and science

From Leibniz to Russell.... the list is endless.

Yeah this is true
All those people were nobillìty
Leibniz was one the greatest mathematician world have seen

You Cant claim a subject is bad until you read it

 

[SubSigma]

Just different ways of navigating life. Same with religion and laws created by the state. Stoicism is great in stressful sutuations, but outside of that it is cope. I view things from an epicurean and nhilistic view.

 

[looksmaxxed]

things that you don't come into contact with on your natural progression through life probably aren't necessary. to know philosophy you need to go to a librarry or its internet equivalent, then you have to read tens of thousands of pages of text. therefore it's probably best to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

i've said this already, but if philosophy was so potent, mathematical notation and the idea of reproducible scientific experiments would have never arisen in our society - people/philosophers would just pull the laws of nature out of their subconscious without ever needing to move a finger, and concepts of formulas and equations would never appear in our collective thinking because they would be completely unnecessary. has this been the case? no, obviously.

and the more time passes, the less potent and valuable (and more fucking pathetic) trying to frame the world with mere words and lame verbal gymnastics becomes.

there's more actual wisdom in the works of shakespeare, milton and lord byron than in thousands of pages of (almost completely randomly generated, despite its authors being unaware of it) books published by pretentious philosophers with IQs of average tiktok influencers.

P.S. i see @OGJBSLAYER (again, what a cringe generic fucking username) replied to this thread ... when evaluating his posts, don't forget that he is completely incapable of even solving raven's progressive matrices designed for 100 - 115 IQ people and has probably made 0 £ in his lifetime with his brain.

embarrassingly ignorant

the whole point of philosophy since Plato is elaborating the implications of our not having unmediated access to reality and the mathematical laws that ostensibly ground it; after all if you are only able to express your diatribe through "mere words," and necessarily so, then perhaps these words are not so mere.

in any case, "philosophy proper" aka analytic philosophy done in anglo universities today is practically reducible to modal logic and in turn to mathematics and really, in turn to Pythagoras, so I would have figured you would be on board with that agenda. Given that entire enterprise is an elaboration of the position that reality is mathematically grounded you seem to ascribe to. But such philosophy is not philosophy at all. It's just math.

 

[incel194012940]

embarrassingly ignorant

the whole point of philosophy since Plato is elaborating the implications of our not having unmediated access to reality and the mathematical laws that ostensibly ground it; after all if you are only able to express your diatribe through "mere words," and necessarily so, then perhaps these words are not so mere.

in any case, "philosophy proper" aka analytic philosophy done in anglo universities today is practically reducible to modal logic and in turn to mathematics and really, in turn to Pythagoras, so I would have figured you would be on board with that agenda. Given that entire enterprise is an elaboration of the position that reality is mathematically grounded you seem to ascribe to. But such philosophy is not philosophy at all. It's just math.

please explain this image if you are a high knowledge user

 

[Interested]

Zero point and almost everyone finds it extremely ANNOYING and boring unless you reverse engineer their arguments to sound based/cool. read @Reconstitution 's post history, hes a new forum intellectual. he told me its all about rhetoric, nothing else matters

for example, liberal intellectual spread annoying talking points about racism, "bigotry", sexism when they could make it sound more epic/cool by simply denying the existence of sex and race with science/biology

Now your posts make sense

 

[Deleted member 21735]

philosphy=mentla masturbation

 

[mogger123]

cope, all value of all time derived from phisliohpy

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

please explain this image if you are a high knowledge user View attachment 2263692

The (X,Y,Z,R) represents the values of the truth table for different values of p,q (T, F)

(T,T,T,T) is a tautology and (F,F,F,F) is a contradiction

What else is there to explain ?

This is basic logic you learn in high school

 

[mogger123]

embarrassingly ignorant

the whole point of philosophy since Plato is elaborating the implications of our not having unmediated access to reality and the mathematical laws that ostensibly ground it; after all if you are only able to express your diatribe through "mere words," and necessarily so, then perhaps these words are not so mere.

in any case, "philosophy proper" aka analytic philosophy done in anglo universities today is practically reducible to modal logic and in turn to mathematics and really, in turn to Pythagoras, so I would have figured you would be on board with that agenda. Given that entire enterprise is an elaboration of the position that reality is mathematically grounded you seem to ascribe to. But such philosophy is not philosophy at all. It's just math.

slop slinger putting effort into a post again

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

things that you don't come into contact with on your natural progression through life probably aren't necessary. to know philosophy you need to go to a librarry or its internet equivalent, then you have to read tens of thousands of pages of text. therefore it's probably best to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

An unexamined life is not worth living

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

slop slinger putting effort into a post again

Hey, are u actually Harold O Brian ?

 

[mogger123]

Hey, are u actually Harold O Brian ?

yes, i was permabanned for posting heterosexual males kissing platonically. then the mods generously allowed me to return on this account in the spirit of Christmas

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

yes, i was permabanned for posting heterosexual males kissing platonically. then the mods generously allowed me to return on this account in the spirit of Christmas

Great, I remember you....

 

[Deleted member 26116]

Most of philosophy is mental masturbation. Some ideas are interesting, but most of them are not worth your time. If anything, the world needs less philosophy and more scientific facts that will actually help us move forward. No one needs yet another armchair anthropologist or philosopher to tell us what ideas are right and what ideas are wrong.

 

[Gonthar]

Just study Chinese philosophy - it doesn't have questions, just answers, on how the world works, what is the role of the state, how family, relations are supposed to be, etc.
In fact in China there are banned all sorts of stuff that make you waste your mental energy in pointless mental gymnastics, like movies and tv shows about time travel - I mean it's not real, it can't be done, why even think or fantasize about it when it serves no real life purpose?

 

[Deleted member 29796]

Zero point and almost everyone finds it extremely ANNOYING and boring unless you reverse engineer their arguments to sound based/cool. read @Reconstitution 's post history, hes a new forum intellectual. he told me its all about rhetoric, nothing else matters

for example, liberal intellectual spread annoying talking points about racism, "bigotry", sexism when they could make it sound more epic/cool by simply denying the existence of sex and race with science/biology

I would still say philosophy is incredibly important, it just doesn't function outside of an academic scene properly, instead, the benefits of philosophy trickle down, either from some law student learning ethics and it influencing their position if they take a judicial role, or in how it can affect our political studies majors, people that will typically go on to influence legislation.

It's just, outside of the extreme circlejerking going on amongst academics, youtubers, twitter users, media, etc., have more influence on the philosophical makeup than a philosopher, it might be the case that it remains that way as well. So yeah, rhetoric remains king, rhetoric is influencing minds at a significantly faster pace than philosophy, and working with philosophy would mean that people were at least adhering the laws of logic, the principles of an argument. But we obviously don't have that, so people just go around saying w/e and hoping they are incredibly convincing, someone like Destiny (streamer), he is smarter than the average person, clearly, but he is just a rhetorician, he is lazy and refuses to engage deeply with putting in actual work, as a result, it's not hard to find that guy running into contradiction, either in veganism, leftism, etc., I could go on and on, the moment a philosophy nerd comes on, he just becomes a lazy egoist.

And yeah, because of the lack of philosophy, people act in "moral luck", such to say that they act in a manner that accesses the "good" following the consequence of an action, most times its not accessed at all, so you have "liberal" (they know nothing of liberalism) going around promoting liberalism while saying stupid shit that turns people away, they essentially DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. Like wtf, these guys are peak useless, they actually turn people away, don't even get me started on the average leftist, and the amount of braindead gatekeeping they do. When I have to explain to a leftists, how our fucking legislative system works, my goodness, we are doomed.

 

[Deleted member 29796]

People don't have time to read, time to study, time to flush out arguments, time to really live in the first place, most people's time is dedicated to work.

If you could visualize someone's entire life, like a calendar, imagine how disgusting it would be the for the average person, pertaining to work, most of that time on minimum wage, people would probably lose their fucking minds. The fact that this is a simple conclusion of most that glance at ethics, it just shows you how fucked people are. They can't formulate an idea, a pathway towards improvement, They are statistically trapped in the income bracket for life, their children statistically trapped too.


But I do plan on pursuing my PhD in Philosophy, I don't feel comfortable promoting significant change without a near mastery of the basics. @Crusile One can argue me off of it, I still plan to pursue some post graduate degree as inspiration to family members, etc.

 

[Deleted member 29796]

And when I make a serious post, the idea is to positively influence, but beyond that, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing. Remaining somewhat consistent, somewhat clear, etc., this only requires a surface brush with the related fields, like English, writing, ethics, logic, etc., I don't really "know" what I am doing, no philosopher does, but actual philosophers can definitely explain the basics, thoroughly, which I definitely can't do. I know people that can sort of do it without a formal education, but you can always tell something is missing there. Funnily enough, these guys are usually a bit lazy, they lose on the rhetoric side of things, it's funny because I think that lazy approach gets flushed out when you do what it takes to get a PhD, I just see pursuing education as worth it if you aren't some pioneering mind but wish to add to a field, and that's not to say some rare mind wouldn't benefit as well. But I also think I'm acting immorally without completely understanding the basics, its just, weight that versus the average social media user with a big platform, going out saying any stupid shit.

Outside of the basics, most of my ideas are just adhering to empathy and experience, while maintaining some decent thought, and adhering to rules. Mix that in with a deterministic and % chance approach to things and it might seem like I have answers to things, but I definitely don't, just a bit more sense than the average person, but like I said, the average person doesn't get the time for this.


Ideally the average person is smart enough to prevent exploitation, in that event, I'm definitely chilling and not wasting my time with politics. I would still pursue knowledge but I would rather the average person just be much more aware of how they are being used and how they use people.

 

[wollet2]

Just study Chinese philosophy - it doesn't have questions, just answers, on how the world works, what is the role of the state, how family, relations are supposed to be, etc.
In fact in China there are banned all sorts of stuff that make you waste your mental energy in pointless mental gymnastics, like movies and tv shows about time travel - I mean it's not real, it can't be done, why even think or fantasize about it when it serves no real life purpose?

sounds miserable, this is just how Chinese like to live theres nothing grand about it

 

[wollet2]

People don't have time to read, time to study, time to flush out arguments, time to really live in the first place, most people's time is dedicated to work.

If you could visualize someone's entire life, like a calendar, imagine how disgusting it would be the for the average person, pertaining to work, most of that time on minimum wage, people would probably lose their fucking minds. The fact that this is a simple conclusion of most that glance at ethics, it just shows you how fucked people are. They can't formulate an idea, a pathway towards improvement, They are statistically trapped in the income bracket for life, their children statistically trapped too.


But I do plan on pursuing my PhD in Philosophy, I don't feel comfortable promoting significant change without a near mastery of the basics. @Crusile One can argue me off of it, I still plan to pursue some post graduate degree as inspiration to family members, etc.

wow. i havent worked 3 days in my life and i do nothing all day

brutal

 

[Deleted member 29796]

philosophy is used to solve moral dilemmas. the problem with philosophy is that anyone can participate, whereas in stem fields, you need to actually know what you're talking about. so philosophy has been over the years inundated with irrelevant bullshit mental gymnastics from insane people.

This comment hits at the heart of a problem, and yeah, that's the reason for why I would never claim to know a lick of anything, because the more you learn about philosophy, the more you learn you should actually just shut up. But the really loud people are doing a lot of fucking harm right now.

Not true.... Try publishing BS in philosophy journals.

Also this, but the sentiment he is replying to goes back to the first reply in this response, which is that one might think philosophy is trash because anyone can participate. Really, with the internet, or just any platform, anyone can participate in anything. You can become a chiropractor, throw "Dr" on your name, go on youtube and break your scope of practice within the first 10 seconds. I have seen flat earthers convince more people that physicists, in debate. Of course, that all ties in with philosophy, but I just know no field in protected, inherently because of our approach towards establishing truth allows for anyone to claim they are an expert in a field, establishing truth at the moment is more about telling a great story while appealing to interests.





You 100% have to put in the work and have to engage with philosophy at some level, to make any lick of sense. This is why people that luck into it, by watching youtube debates, or getting their first dose of formal logic, public speaking, etc., once they get a lick of that, they steamroll the average person in debate. You could put me before millions in this country, and on the paper, judged by philosophers, I would bet my life on steamrolling them in argumentation. That's not even a point to brag, I'm trying to emphasis the knowledge gap when you lack philosophy. Knowledge is everything in life, in this type of life, because most things that hurt your do so because you don't knowledge of it.

 

[incel194012940]

I would still say philosophy is incredibly important, it just doesn't function outside of an academic scene properly, instead, the benefits of philosophy trickle down, either from some law student learning ethics and it influencing their position if they take a judicial role, or in how it can affect our political studies majors, people that will typically go on to influence legislation.

It's just, outside of the extreme circlejerking going on amongst academics, youtubers, twitter users, media, etc., have more influence on the philosophical makeup than a philosopher, it might be the case that it remains that way as well. So yeah, rhetoric remains king, rhetoric is influencing minds at a significantly faster pace than philosophy, and working with philosophy would mean that people were at least adhering the laws of logic, the principles of an argument. But we obviously don't have that, so people just go around saying w/e and hoping they are incredibly convincing, someone like Destiny (streamer), he is smarter than the average person, clearly, but he is just a rhetorician, he is lazy and refuses to engage deeply with putting in actual work, as a result, it's not hard to find that guy running into contradiction, either in veganism, leftism, etc., I could go on and on, the moment a philosophy nerd comes on, he just becomes a lazy egoist.

And yeah, because of the lack of philosophy, people act in "moral luck", such to say that they act in a manner that accesses the "good" following the consequence of an action, most times its not accessed at all, so you have "liberal" (they know nothing of liberalism) going around promoting liberalism while saying stupid shit that turns people away, they essentially DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. Like wtf, these guys are peak useless, they actually turn people away, don't even get me started on the average leftist, and the amount of braindead gatekeeping they do. When I have to explain to a leftists, how our fucking legislative system works, my goodness, we are doomed.

TDLR I get: you believe in an abstract “good” that philosophy is the method of finding. It’s based on IRL and not mental change, and it’s based on truth theory, you should discover set true beliefs (no contradictions) and have large knowledge as a moral framework to reach “good” as close as possible

why should i or other people care about this. my interpretation is that you are just infj or similar and it’s just your own brains structure that makes you so interested.

People don't have time to read, time to study, time to flush out arguments, time to really live in the first place, most people's time is dedicated to work.

If you could visualize someone's entire life, like a calendar, imagine how disgusting it would be the for the average person, pertaining to work, most of that time on minimum wage, people would probably lose their fucking minds. The fact that this is a simple conclusion of most that glance at ethics, it just shows you how fucked people are. They can't formulate an idea, a pathway towards improvement, They are statistically trapped in the income bracket for life, their children statistically trapped too.

the idea that you spend around 1/3 of life on work isn’t hard to realize. Most people would have time for this if it was a priority. Why would I want to read, study or flesh out arguments? What would I read in your opinion? I find it boring. I don’t believe in truth or good theory.

Ideally the average person is smart enough to prevent exploitation, in that event, I'm definitely chilling and not wasting my time with politics. I would still pursue knowledge but I would rather the average person just be much more aware of how they are being used and how they use people.

in what ways? My assumption is it’s obvious but doesn’t matter so no one cares. Can they stop being used? Why learn about how you’re using someone if it doesn’t make you better at it? It’s a point of view that makes you feel bad

 

[Deleted member 29796]

TDLR I get: you believe in an abstract “good” that philosophy is the method of finding. It’s based on IRL and not mental change, and it’s based on truth theory, you should discover set true beliefs (no contradictions) and have large knowledge as a moral framework to reach “good” as close as possible

why should i or other people care about this. my interpretation is that you are just infj or similar and it’s just your own brains structure that makes you so interested.

I don't believe in an abstract good, I don't think humans could ever find that, but I do believe that I'm personally in contradiction without a better understanding of the things I push, especially if these things will impact a life, or many lives.

the idea that you spend around 1/3 of life on work isn’t hard to realize. Most people would have time for this if it was a priority. Why would I want to read, study or flesh out arguments? What would I read in your opinion? I find it boring. I don’t believe in truth or good theory.

I don't think most people will want to flush out arguments, ideally, most people would have time to do things they enjoy, what they enjoy will vary, but they will have time to put towards it and we could work towards producing more than just what generates profit. But, in that same society, people are educated to a minimum level, that minimum education includes a surface understanding of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying everyone should go or has to go PhD level.

in what ways? My assumption is it’s obvious but doesn’t matter so no one cares. Can they stop being used? Why learn about how you’re using someone if it doesn’t make you better at it? It’s a point of view that makes you feel bad

For this, a simple question, two populations of 1 million, in one population, they aren't taught ethics at all, and in the other, they are taught ethics, do you hold that the population taught ethics wouldn't have a higher probability of adhering to morality in their decision making than the population that wasn't taught?

I'm simply suggesting we would benefit from having the average person aware of when they are in contradiction, aware of what they are doing is immoral, why it is immoral, and how best to go about remedying or avoiding the situation.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

This comment hits at the heart of a problem, and yeah, that's the reason for why I would never claim to know a lick of anything, because the more you learn about philosophy, the more you learn you should actually just shut up. But the really loud people are doing a lot of fucking harm right now.



Also this, but the sentiment he is replying to goes back to the first reply in this response, which is that one might think philosophy is trash because anyone can participate. Really, with the internet, or just any platform, anyone can participate in anything. You can become a chiropractor, throw "Dr" on your name, go on youtube and break your scope of practice within the first 10 seconds. I have seen flat earthers convince more people that physicists, in debate. Of course, that all ties in with philosophy, but I just know no field in protected, inherently because of our approach towards establishing truth allows for anyone to claim they are an expert in a field, establishing truth at the moment is more about telling a great story while appealing to interests.





You 100% have to put in the work and have to engage with philosophy at some level, to make any lick of sense. This is why people that luck into it, by watching youtube debates, or getting their first dose of formal logic, public speaking, etc., once they get a lick of that, they steamroll the average person in debate. You could put me before millions in this country, and on the paper, judged by philosophers, I would bet my life on steamrolling them in argumentation. That's not even a point to brag, I'm trying to emphasis the knowledge gap when you lack philosophy. Knowledge is everything in life, in this type of life, because most things that hurt your do so because you don't knowledge of it.

Right...

Philosophy has taught me to deconstruct other people's worldview, find weak premises, hidden assumptions, unintended consequences and incoherence.

Normies just don't stand a chance against me. I know their positions better than them.

 

[jellyfishcel]

P in V

 

[Deleted member 29796]

I know their positions better than them.

And you can't even get them to understand this.

 

[Gonthar]

sounds miserable, this is just how Chinese like to live theres nothing grand about it

What do you mean, Chinese philosophy is mostly practical, common sense ideas not useless mental masturbation.

 

[incel194012940]

I don't think most people will want to flush out arguments, ideally, most people would have time to do things they enjoy, what they enjoy will vary, but they will have time to put towards it and we could work towards producing more than just what generates profit. But, in that same society, people are educated to a minimum level, that minimum education includes a surface understanding of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying everyone should go or has to go PhD level.

that’s idealism model that has never happened, maybe it’s possible in vacuum but definetly not through education.

I think you have the belief that everyone shares these values with you, maybe it’s repressed, but it can come out of them -instead of everyone being malleable toward different values that might be no worse (yours are the higher form innate to humanity), it will lead to personal improvement and better/higher/more harmony society

but that is an interesting set of philosophical premises and value judgements I am not convinced of

For this, a simple question, two populations of 1 million, in one population, they aren't taught ethics at all, and in the other, they are taught ethics, do you hold that the population taught ethics wouldn't have a higher probability of adhering to morality in their decision making than the population that wasn't taught?

I'm simply suggesting we would benefit from having the average person aware of when they are in contradiction, aware of what they are doing is immoral, why it is immoral, and how best to go about remedying or avoiding the situation.

probably not, public education beyond health class (wear a condom, there is a bin in front) level lessons doesn’t leave much different in terms of the subject they teach.

who was Diocletian, where is Angola, what is an ionic compound, find the instantaneous rate of change at the point

but you expect the average person to take on a system of reasoning completely foreign to them and contrary to typical thought processes? And why? Because they want to be moral and avoid contradictions?

provide an example of this irl please

I can’t see more than maybe 1/10 people caring, maybe they pretend to talking to you or kinda sorta care but not enough to change their life, it’s repressed. So yea better probability

 

[wollet2]

What do you mean, Chinese philosophy is mostly practical, common sense ideas not useless mental masturbation.

its vague bs and maybe a way of life that appeals to some people nothing else