Existence is prevailing more so than subsiding, if it passes all the tests, it exists. Do perfect circles exist? Yes, as concepts, but in this universe no physical perfect circle exists(which is specifically 'in this universe'; it doesn't pass the tests).
>existence
For more than 3 millennia philosotards have been abusing this word and consistently failed to produce any insights. The prime example of a useless time-wasting language game. Metaphysics is a failure.
Shut up foo
You know it's true. Stay buttmad. You will never meaningfully talk about existence. It will always be empty words.
U hecka mad
>time-wasting language game
H2O is a more useful description than water for the purpose of chemistry. Therefore science, like philosophy, is the pursuit of improving our language.
They're opposites. Science gains objective knowledge. Philosophy is proud of its own ignorance.
You're retarded. Philosophy is knowledge in retrospect. Knowledge breaking thought.
Show me objective knowledge gained by philosophy. Show me a philosophical problem solved by philosophers.
Philosophy takes what we know and then produces stuff like guidance on where to go next, in-depth understanding, potential use and sub-use, helps us think for ourselves, what we should do as a species given what we know, etc.
No philosophy needed. All you said is trivial and common sense. Also you failed to answer my question.
No it's not because what's trivial and common sense is worked out through thinking philosophically you moroncoon.
And you use philosophy all the time. When you do what I said. It's philosophical thinking.
>every trivial thought qualifies as philosophy
By that reasoning looking left and right before crossing a road is also deep philosophy. Well, on your intellectual level it actually might be. Congratulations, modern day Socrates.
You lose kid
You don't even know how to define philosophy and any definition you have you do not even understand. You throw a sharpened vague insult at philosophy anyway, meaningless in terms of your own thinking pattern that goes unchanged.
Philosophers themselves can't define philosophy. Lmao @ the absolute state of philosophy.
I sort of get you. Philosophy as a field is pointless, it's just a discussion/debate board. However, philosophy should be understood as a compulsory part of thinking.
I agree within the limited scope of discussions on this board and the public ''intellectuals'' that feed this garbage. However, sometimes scientists take a different approach to advance their knowledge, like I remember a biologist talking with JP about new animal experiments revealing that we have a bad habit of projecting our model of the world as an extension of our hands on animal cognition and behaviour. I think that's profoundly philosophical yet useful unlike woo woo Deepak Chopra versus Daniel Dennet debates on LULZ.
What a miserable response. Why covet us in your misfortune, sad face. Honestly.
>revealing that we have a bad habit of projecting our model of the world as an extension of our hands on animal cognition and behaviour.
That fits perfectly into Deepak vs Dennett debates. The so called mirror test is a prime example. Vegan idiots like to believe that it proves animal consciousness. While in reality it only proves confirmation bias and projection of the experimenter.
You make a good point. Maybe a better example: ethics applied in the medical profession. Hospitals do hire a philosopher, but I guess the role of the philosopher is to guide discussion between medical professionals and the medical professionals with their practical experience ultimately decide what policy is considered most ethical. Thus philosophy has become part of the job of (applied) scientists and is useful in such a way, but not as an independent field of study.
How are philosophers more qualified to talk about ethics? Literally any person holds ethical beliefs. I don't see how having a philosopher in that situation would help making a decision. Ethics is completely subjective.
What distinguishes science and a scientist, a philosopher and philosophy? You seem to treat science as full and philosophy as empty. Philosophy is a protocol of mind. As said before, the field of philosophy is just a discussion/debate board in academia. It doesn't really train philosophy properly, there is need for clarity there. However, just like science(full) we use philosophy all the time. There's no need to be a graded, working philosopher, just to have some idea on how to think philosophically.
We already deboonked that fallacy. If you equate every trivial thought with philosophy then "philosophy" becomes a meaningless and empty label.
Derp.
I'm out.
>How are philosophers more qualified to talk about ethics?
You either misunderstand or misrepresent what you're replying to. Anyway: a philosopher, like a chairman, a coach, a mediator, has a clear and structured overview of a variety of ways of thinking. A philosopher therefore can function as a general ''manager'' (not a boss, but an organizer) of specialists. Everyone has beliefs, but not all beliefs are equally valuable. A doctor's opinion on arbitrage is more valuable than your opinion or the philosopher's opinion, for example because the doctor has to live with the consequences of a decision. Philosophy can help the doctor view those consequences in many different ways.
>a philosopher, like a chairman, a coach, a mediator, has a clear and structured overview of a variety of ways of thinking.
Again, no knowledge of philosophy is required for this. Just any person with common sense and a neutral attitude can do that. Philosophers are even less qualified because they're ideologically biased due to their "education".
>Everyone has beliefs, but not all beliefs are equally valuable.
Who determines the value of a belief?
>A doctor's opinion on arbitrage is more valuable than your opinion or the philosopher's opinion
Then why should he listen to the philosopher at all? And is the doctor's opinion still the most valuable when his view is just "I let this patient die because I don't like his political views"?
>Again, no knowledge of philosophy is required for this. Just any person with common sense and a neutral attitude can do that. Philosophers are even less qualified because they're ideologically biased due to their "education".
Where do our ways of thinking and behaving come from?
I wouldn't bother arguing with a drone. You wouldn't download a bear.
Would you?
EhHahahahahahHah
>Where do our ways of thinking and behaving come from?
Don't know about yours but mine come from my own intelligence. I'm glad I'm not an NPC. NPCs can't think for themselves and need some authority to tell them what to think and how to behave.
You're soooooo fucking doopid. From my own intelligence doesn't even make sense. For you use intellect, it isn't a field of study is it? You don't study intellect. You build intellect though study. We shape or ways of thinking(intelligence) through philosophy.
I never studied philosophy yet I'm better at it than any philosopher. Whenever I read philosophy I can only cringe at how dumb and narrowminded they are.
>my own intelligence
Intelligence is a process of discernment. Discernment between what? A variety of ways of thinking of behaving? What variety do you know, what is the content, the input? Your particular experience, what you've read, what you've heard, the way you were raised, educated, treated by others...philosophy offers an overview of all sorts of ways of thinking and behaving so that your intelligence has more content to work with, more choice and more ability to question it's own conditioning.
So many words, but no meaning. Your post has no content.
Be a good drone mind and scan our society for a moment, find stuff that we don't like. Bitch toy.
>find stuff that we don't like
That's easy. You for example dislike intelligence, logic and facts.
Did you just crash and spew nonsense before your mind withered away.
Psst. Did your mind fart as well?
Peeeeeerm
Everyone take this man's change.
*Cha ching*
I'm not a man. Stop assuming my gender.
It magic, genda.
Your mom is definitely female equipped at the time she conceived you. However, she is not inherently a female because of her female part at that time. She just plays a better female role. So I guess you're right, you ain't a man, you a person.
Ones manhood can be critically acclaimed. You can be called a man because you have an overarching amount of male parts. It's just a figure of sense.
I humbly apologize for your economic loss. It is a sad day for you.
Fucking. Retard.
we're waiting on right sex to give us the information we need for our machines and bodies.
Inb4
>Muh pop into mind
No it doesn't.
Science is completed.
You then think philosophically for a moment to consider the future of the product.
yes
>if it passes all the tests, it exists.
Hope.
We get it. You're an academia drone mind. Academia is truthfully cheap, petty education designed by a committee of perverse Government shills. No-one respects what you say, you just use the abstraction of academia in society to manifold discussions which pointlessly ripples with your false victory. You can't even think for yourself, you sacrifice your philosophical thought so you cannot. For some obvious reasons(you're profiting socially). Dude. Stop being a pervert. You are dumb.
Why are you projecting so hard? I'm the free thinker all the acadummic elites warned you about. I'm posting the real truth the midwitted professors want to suppress by calling it "disinformation".
god that stupid fucking picture isn't even funny. fuck off OP.
ITT: brainlets filtered by Plato
Plato IS the brainlet.