>any kind of historical defence of philosophy against the charge of being worthless.

You won't really find a cogent one.

I got just the place for you, Billy-Bob

>>>/pol/

I don't see any point in philosophy nowadays. That's why I'm reading only the classics and will stop somewhere in the 1800s. Any school of philosophy whose name begins with "post" is mental masturbation by default

This?

Philosophy is a sham. It died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a cunt of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that all philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of living on Fathers money and forming semantic rhetoric to convince everyone you are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

"Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?"

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
"Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? STFU, Shoppy. Next."

>Hegel - Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
"Objectivity? Really, Hegel. STFU. Next."

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful.”
"Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant, m8.

The answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions should be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art. So go ahead, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, because that's all you can do.

>>3993811
A simple quote will do

>>3993822
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all linguistic constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology...,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Of course, these can be spread out to a great many more fields, but only an idiot would resort to philosophy. Even Philosophy has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from a linguistic and psychological standpoint; 'can we ever have identical viewing of these symbols?' Or a physics perspective; 'am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on'. Philosophy is dead.

>that completely erroneous representation of /lit/
Why don't you figure out for yourself why we need philosophy, sport?

>>3993822
I'm more looking for something from the greeks, in defence of their philosophy.

Not something contemporary.

>>3993820
masterful satire

>>3993828
Try Edward Feser or Oderberg.
Or maybe Wolfgang Smith since he's a scientist.

It's logically impossible to give an argument against philosophy because you have to think philosophically to argue against it.

>>3993809 (OP)
Philosophy, along with religion, is useless.
Humanity, for the most part, has surpasses pointless thinking that gets nothing done.
Join the club and stop hindering mankind

Is everyone in this thread being an ironic ruseman?

>>3993822
>>3993824
You talk about pitting philosophy against science as if they were two religions. What you don't realize is that philosophy and science are symbiotically connected; philosophy proposes questions to be answered, science proposes answers to be questioned. The constant resonance between the two elevates both methods of critical thought.

Philosophy is only important to those who are lost.
~ ME

Stop trying to force it on others. We don't want to hear what your sophmore professor said about how everyone should live their lives.

>>3993888
Who's 'ME'?

The use of philosophy is in determining what is useful. Without philosophy we wouldn't be able to decide what the point is, so nothing is useful as there is no ends to reach by any method.
Philosophy and religion are the compass by which we find our way. Without them, we may be making progress; but where?

>>3993887
I'm pretty sure the gist of that pasta is that empirical observation is the only way of obtaining knowledge. That anything outside the realm of observable phenomena would be irrational speculation. I think that's what it's hinting at, anyway. Not pitting science against philosophy, but holding science up and saying there is nothing else.

>>3993898
abbreviation for Mass Effect. John Shepherd says it in ME1, on one of the side missions.

Philosophy is extremely important. It's more important than science, technology, medicine, etc.
If the world thinks philosophy is worthless it's only because the world is populated by fools. Anybody who isn't a philosopher is more or less a slave. You can be president of the USA but without philosophy you are a slave.
The fact that philosophy goes around in rags and doesn't try and pawn itself off to the world and promises no quick and easy rewards to the shallow-minded is a testament to its greatness.

People that think that philosophy is useless are the people that are the most hopelessly enslaved to some philosophy that was spun out many years ago that they are not even the slightest bit conscious of.

>>3993905
>honestly believes he's too intelligent for philosophy
>quotes a character in a video game to back up his own narcissistic ignorance

The only cool thing man can do is think. We've accomplished everything by thinking. We will continue to think. The reason why we have such a high place in our world is because we can think so much better than everything else. Science is a philosophy, it's the practical philosophy. The philosophy that allows us to do practical things like build buildings or maintain our health. The rest of philosophy is for wisdom. If you claim thinking is useless you are a leech and forsaking your own humanity.

>>3993921
Nicely put

Polite sage though

>>3993888
>>3993905

>quoting Mass Effect

>>3993921
How's it important? And why?

I can use all the arguments you used for philosophy for anything, basically. I can say "Anybody who isn't a psychologist is more or less a slave" or "Anybody who isn't a biologist is more or less a slave".

>>3993952
biologists don't care about wisdom though. They're just faggots who play with insects

>>3993952
Read Plato, he will give you a better understanding of why than I ever could.

>>3993977
>biologists don't care about wisdom though. They're just faggots who play with insects
Try saying that to your cardiologist when you have your first stroke at 45.

File: 1375478934919.jpg-(64 KB, 825x336, sagan quote.jpg)

64 KB JPG

Again, more undeserved bashing of Sagan.

You people are well and truly fucking retarded. How about reading up on those you criticize you pieces of shits?

And saying modern day atheists are philosophy-bashers is kind of retarded too as most of modern philosophers are, you guessed it... fucking atheists! Or at the very least non-believers.

I'm pretty sure Plato`s Apology is where you want to look. Really, anything Plato should help.

>>3993875
I did, it was fun, but now that I've killed that ten minutes, what next? Think I'll read a book...

>>3993942
>>3993923
The joke was ME is me (anon), not Mass Effect. Which is made all the more hilarious that you think my shitty quotes were from a video game.

>>3993923
>too intelligent for philosophy
I never said that. In fact, I like reading philosophy. But in doing so, I notice that it's only worth reading if you are lost. I am lost.

>>3993921
>It's more important than science
In about a hundred years the world will no longer be a habitable environment for human beings. So how again is philosophy more important that science?

>>3994030
The Republic?

>>3994064
> So how again is philosophy more important that science?

If the human race never had philosophy then its extinction would be as trivial as the extinction of an obscure species of beetle.
It would be better for us all to go extinct than for us to lose philosophy forever.

>>3994068

You honestly won't find anything particularly worthwhile in Plato. Plato is interesting as a historical figure and his writings as history of ideas, but you won't actually learn anything new.

Yeah, yeah, I'll get a lot of hate for this but at least Bertrand Russell agrees with me. If you want a grounding in the stuff modern philosophy has spent some 300 years refuting then read Plato and Aristotle.

>>3994075
>its extinction would be as trivial as the extinction of an obscure species of beetle
And what arrogant philosophy has made you think that knowing philosophy can possibly affect this?

>>3994080
bullshit
Plato is the greatest philosopher.

Philosophy isn't at all like science. It's not like one theory replaces another. Plato is the foundation of western philosophy.

>>3994080
>won't actually learn anything new.
Is this on the basis that I already know Plato's philosophy? Because what if I don't know any philosophy? Will he still teach me nothing?

File: 1375480612101.gif-(1.28 MB, 250x198, 1375456011595.gif)

1.28 MB GIF

>>3994075

Hahahah

>this kind of faggotry
Wow.

>>3994089
it's funny, because without philosophy you wouldn't even be able to state how much the human race is worth. You can't even disagree with me without philosophizing.

>>3994088
Plato will teach you what being a philosopher is all about. He will give you the spirit of philosophy.

>>3994088

His ideas are whack, that's the thing. Again, read it as historical documents and they are immensely impressive, fascinating and interesting. Of course there is wisdom to be found there, but that's the case for almost every philosopher. The main reason Plato and Aristotle are so well-known is because they were infleuntial in the wrong way. As Russell states in his History Of Western Philosophy, philosophy since Aristotle has primarily been concerned with very slowly correcting the erroneous ideas they had.

>>3994101
>His ideas are whack, that's the thing.

No they aren't. His ideas are solid.

>>3994101
So what philosopher would you recommend reading to someone who's not even read Plato?

>>3994105
Plato.

I read some random philosophy books: Apology, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Tao Te Ching, Candide, and Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.

They were mostly alright, but nothing particularly novel or spectacular. Should I keep going? Any suggestions?

>>3994106
Why did you just get done saying don't read plato, but now recommend it, anon? Anon?

>>3994105

Well, why don't you start with A History Of Western Philosophy? Russell goes through a lot and you can see who you like. Then read those works. And then read works that influenced that person... and so on.

>>3994111
I'm a different anon.

I think Plato is a great starting point for philosophy, because he'll teach you to be humble about knowledge/wisdom and to question and cross-examine things, which is the first requirement of philosophy.

>>3994112
That book came out in 1945. Is he perhaps working on an update? I assume something happened since the end of WWII.

Who do you like reading?

>>3994117
lol

>>3994117

Russell's been dead since 1970, pal.

I like reading everyone. You should too. Form your own opinions. The trick is just to start reading. The more you get into it the more you learn who are hacks and who are serious people.

>>3994115
>needing someone to teach you that
oh dear

>>3994123
>4chan
dont be a hypocrite

>>3994123
>being this snobby

you haven't learned it yourself

>>3994122
Well he shouldn't have called it "A History of Western Philosophy" because there is still Western Philosophy being developed. I am going to write him a strongly worded letter about this.

>The book provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
During which time he neglected to update his book during the next 25 years. Lazy...

>>3994129
>being humble on the 4chans, and not taking advantage of anonymity to go all experimental
oh dear

>>3994130

Are you over 16?

Be honest.

>>3993824

Reducing philosophy into only axiomatic propositions is as idiotic as you can be. Sure predicate logic is usefull when dealing with logical phallacies but attempting to reduce things like aesthetics and ethics into predicate's means ignoring the linguistic ambiguity of language and culture.
It's like you people haven't read any Wittgenstein at all,shame.

>>3994130
it's like you genuinely believe there's been any worthwhile philosophy after 1945

>>3994134
Yes. Over 21 in fact. Am I at an age where I am required to be serious?

>>3994139
I just assumed their had been. No?

>>3993997
I already did, nigga. All of his dialogues. I still don't see how his vision of the philosopher x the sophist is any relevant now

>>3994141
oh yeah, new atheism and 3rd wave feminism :^)

>>3994141
nah m8, "philosophy" for the past 50 years has been taken over by French paedophiles who want to convince you that truth doesn't exist so it's ok if they fuck children.

>>3994144
New Atheism? I hope it's better than New Coke...

>>3994146
Who's that?

>>3994142
>I still don't see how his vision of the philosopher x the sophist is any relevant now

but it's so fucking relevant now
everybody on 4chan is a sophist
I'm a sophist, I only come here to argue for my own sake. I have no real commitment to truth. That goes for nearly everybody in the modern world. It's so relevant.

>>3994105
Sartre
Camus
Kierkegaard
Nietszche

>>3994004
Doctors are given more respect than they deserve. In older cultures they weren't so highly esteemed, but in ours they are, because for modern men only the body exists, so the physician takes the place of the priest or sage.

>>3994150
sophists taught for money m8, you're a clown

>>3994151
bait

>>3994154
nah, that's not the main thing about a sophist

a sophist is a sophist because he pretends to have wisdom that he doesn't have.

>>3994157
How is that bait? Seemed genuine to me.

I didn't ask who he thought the God of Philosophy was...

>>3994157
I was being earnest. They're all pretty coherent modern "philosophers" with differing views that should be cross examined

File: 1375482072685.png-(27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png)

27 KB PNG

Do philosofags actually believe a quote is a valid argument? Let me laugh even harder.

>>3993926
Science isn't philosophy by any academically accepted definition of the word.

Here's the easiest way to break it down:

Science = study of observable phenomena

Philosophy = study of unobservable phenomena

Good example: back when String Theory was in its infancy, there was some controversy in the scientific community over whether or not String Theory was actually philosophy and not science at all, because there seemed to be no way to empirically evaluate the claims String Theory made, in which case it would, indeed, be philosophy.

>>3994152
there's this part in a Dialogue of Plato's where Socrates describes the physicians need to cure the soul before curing the body.
The ancients probably had in some way a more holistic view of health than we do. They looked at vice as a kind of illness or pollutant, but a modern doctor might look at a spoiled brat of a child and find "nothing wrong with her" because her body lacks disease.
It's pretty hilarious that we still have stigma against mental illness / psychology, and that people that have depression "aren't really ill, not like a person with a broken leg is ill", as though the brain weren't part of the body.

>>3994161
>>3994164

sartre was a frustrated manchild that glorified teenage angst
camus was sartre for the poor
kierkegaard is for bandwagoning in the counter-atheism new hip trend
nietszche is for ignorant 15 year old special snowflakes

hope my post helped you :^)

>>3994006
>And saying modern day atheists are philosophy-bashers is kind of retarded too as most of modern philosophers are, you guessed it... fucking atheists! Or at the very least non-believers.

There is a difference between disbelieving in the theistic god of christianity, while perhaps holding some views on a metaphysical absolute like schopenhauer's will, the tao, the void, heidegger's Being, etc, and being a brute materialist in the vein of 19th century scientism, as are more fedora wearing faggots.

An atheist was historically regarded simply one who doesn't believe in the theistic god, it doesn't necessarily preclude having a 'belief' in an absolute. Whereas today, an atheist is a rabid leftist, an anti-christian and denier of any reality beyond that detectable by the senses.

>>3994171
It did. At first I thought you were trolling. Now I am sure of it.

>>3994169
I find it funny that anxiety is seen as a mental illness

>>3994161
To understand them you'd have to have read plato.

>>3994164
Thank you. I'd heard Camus and Nietzsche come up many times before in such discussions, but the other too seem worth looking in to as well.

>>3994182
Why's that?

>>3994177
have fun with your 3nd rate philosophy for dummies

>>3994105
Copleston's A history of philosophy.

>>3994185
Could you be any more arrogant and pretentious?

>>3994189
sit down child

File: 1375482516026.jpg-(5 KB, 179x182, 3.jpg)

5 KB JPG

>>3994189
>using arrogant and pretentious together in a sentence

>>3994171
Kierkegaard was a true genius on the level of Plato and Shakespeare. Even Kierkegaard himself admitted he was a genius.

File: 1375482527561.jpg-(41 KB, 430x538, Philosophy-Major-Most-Int(...).jpg)

41 KB JPG

With the invention of logic and the scientific method philosophy became obsolete. Philosophy factually died in the 19th century.

>>3994188
>5000+ pages
uh, yeah, I'll get right on that....

>>3994184
Nietzsche is a reaction against plato. Kierkegaard is a reaction agains hegel, which is essentially a development of platonism. Sartre is a reinterpretation of heidegger, which is a response to plato, aristotle and everyone other philosopher since the start.

It'll all just be nonsense if you haven't started from the beginning.

>not starting with laozi and confucius
>western babbies
troll thread alert

>>3994199
Kierkegaard was a huge fanboy of Socrates though, whatever you say about Hegel being a continuation of Plato.

>>3994199
What of Plato's writing are necessary to understand the others?

>>3994196
If you want to understand philosophy, then yes, it is necessary.

If you just read Russell, it will be only a tiny bit of information that you could just as well get from wikipedia articles.

>>3994202
hey kid, go play somewhere else and stop wasting everybody's time. everyone knows you ain't gonna read shit and forget all about this till tomorrow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnFeSByySTg

Watch this speech from Alain De Botton. He isn't so much a philosopher as an advocate of philosophy. He'll hopefully point you in the direction of philosophy and indicate its importance.

>>3994202
Not any one specifically, but you need to know Platonism. So just find a book explaining platonism and its development. It isn't just plato. It's a school that developed over a 1000 year period.

>>3994205
I'm setting you on ignore.

>>3994210
At least volume one of copleston's history

>>3993902
>empirical observation is the only way of obtaining knowledge

And philosophy is a way of probing what needs to be answered.

Asking such simple questions like 'why is the flower beautiful' is still in itself a metaphysical one taking concepts of the 'I', 'beauty', and 'why' and with scientific reasoning providing a construct or framework which we might answer it.

Philosophy isn't dead - it's the driving force behind inquisitive thought and curiosity. The seeking of knowledge is just as much a philosophical pursuit as it is a scientific one.

>"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." -Einstein

""How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." -Einstein

File: 1375483422570.png-(34 KB, 163x176, shiggydiggymahler.png)

34 KB PNG

>>3993822
>this whole post
Nothing funnier than philistines being arrogant about their ignorance (so basically there's nothing funnier than philistines being philistines)

>>3993809 (OP)
Are you a troll OP?
Does anyone genuinely believes /lit/ is becoming THAT racist?
Despite ayn rand (and nietzche at some point) this shoulnt be a board like that.
Lets kick out /pol/ trolls before its too late.

>>3994236
>Einstein, as a scientist, has great authority to discuss the merit or non-merit of philosophy

Hmmmm. I seem to recall /lit/ being up in arms when scientists say something negative about philosophy (a little while back there was a shitstorm when Hawkins said that philosophy had failed to keep up with science), on the grounds that they are scientists and don't have any authority in another field. But somehow we should accept their wisdom as weighing heavily when they come out in /favour/ of philosophy? Double standard much? Einstein was an authority on physics. Who gives a flying fuck what he had to say about philosophy.

>>3994258
It's a joke.

>>3994258
Don't be an idiot. That image is from /pol/. OP just spent 5 seconds in MSpaint replacing the "/pol/" with "/lit". It's funny. Laugh.

>>3994272
>>3994273
Ok, my heart stops racing like a Ferrari, will calmly move to other posts now.

>>3993820

All philosophy is "post" something, it's just we've only recently starting being honest about it.

Peripateticism is just post-Platonism.

>>3993921

We wouldn't even have science, technology or medicine if it weren't for philosophy.

File: 1375485876661.jpg-(12 KB, 283x212, leostrauss.jpg)

12 KB JPG

>>3993809 (OP)
Let them explain you, in detail, what is the "scientific" answer to the Socratic question "What is the good life?"

Don´t forget to remind them that saying "whatever you want it to be" or "there is no answer" is nothing more than an admission of their ignorance and inability to deal with the most fundamental problem of both philosophy and human life as such.

/thread

>>3993809 (OP)

Point out that there's no "scientific" reason to do anything. There's no scientific reason to live or kill yourself, or to have sex, or to study the natural world in the first place. Science is just a description of natural process.

When you ask "why do you do what you do rather than something else?" (after the 20 minutes or more it will take a diehard fedora to so much as comprehend the question) they'll inevitably say something like "well we make our own meaning!"

And then you can say "and that's all philosophy and religion are."

You literally cannot logically say philosophy is useless because everybody has his own personal philosophy whether he realizes it or not. It's inherent in human action.

But get ready for a lot of "HURR OUR PURPOSE IS TO REPRODUCE!!!" nonsense before they even comprehend the question.

(our purpose is not to reproduce, Darwinism is a description of a natural process not a moral imperative)

>>3994321

You are implied that there is an objective answer to "what is the good life?"

Full retard.

>>3994321
I have the suspicion atheism and autism tend to be linked in chan culture because of an intuition that many people have regarding atheists; in their raving they tend to display a great ignorance of their own selves. They just take for granted the belief that all that exists is inert matter. It doesn't even occur to them that this 'matter' exists, for us anyway, only as sense impressions in our own minds, and that materialism is may therefore be regarded as at very least a 'leap of faith' or more so, an unwarranted abstraction.

>>3994308
What does that have to do with anything?

We wouldn't have Einstein without Einstein's parents. Einstein is still the superior creature. Doesn't mean we don't treat his parents with a measure of respect, but we also tell them to get out of the way and sit down for a nice plate of biscuits when a serious problem has to be solved.

>>3994348
>implying science, technology or medicine have intrinsic value
>implying intrinsic value exists

>>3994308

Doesn't change the fact that once we got science, technology and medicine it made philosophy more or less obsolote.

>>3994354
And then we didn't know what to do with all that because we 'realised' life has no meaning or purpose.

>>3994342
Indeed. It is the cultivation of the mind in accordance with the nature of the mind, to state the basic principle.

>>3994344
>a great ignorance of their own selves
Precisely.

File: 1375489385498.png-(632 KB, 570x765, 1372419864417.png)

632 KB PNG

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good."

>>3994447
>It is the cultivation of the mind in accordance with the nature of the mind
loling

File: 1375489925958.jpg-(31 KB, 337x425, 1315168596767.jpg)

31 KB JPG

>>3994470
Your loss.

>>3994456
Can someone explain me the concept of these pictures? I do find them amusing, but I can't pinpoint the funny part or what they're satirizing

Can science tell me how to live my life? Can science tell me what the meaning of life is?

/thread

>>3993809 (OP)
>>>/pol/

>>3993809 (OP)

"True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us." - Socrates

Philosophy is not an attempt to provide answers to a certain set of 'philosophical questions.' That is simply the unfortunate way that Western Analytic philosphy is taught at an undergrad level. I would argue that it is the attempt to ask questions clearly, and is applicable to all aspects of life.

In the process of clearly asking questions and in the process of seriously debating possible answers the above conception of wisdom is realized: you begin to see just how many ways the world and yourself could be. You could be nothing but an animal, or you could be a brain, or you could be a bundle of perceptions, you could be a soul or you could be nothing at all. This same uncertainty relates to the world, to governments, to art, girlfriends, love; to 4chan. Anything you like. Begin asking questions in a really clear way and begin really trying to find answers and you make your thinking worthwhile, even if you never find an answer.

Its worthwhile in the same way that working out is. You happen to have a body, why not use it well? You also happen to have a mind, a mind which you happen to use for every second of your conscious life, why not use it well?

Operating on default is easy. It is easy to get fat and it is easy to accept the world as it seems (and I don't mean the pipe-and-beret or dreadlocked crowd who know 'its all not how it seems'. Thats just defualt, easy scepticism and paranoia. Really thinking through a position and all its entailments is HARD). But testing and pushing our limits are things that make us human. Pushing oneself is difficult, but it is also exhilirating and addictive. Philosophy is an area in which we can push ourselves.

Every person I have met who I have considered truly fucking impressive has applied discipline, effort and crazy amounts of will to all areas of their life. Philosophy is one; its part of being a balanced person. If you can think then take the time and make the effort to think well.

Theres a reptile brain inside you telling you to get fat, accept the world as it seems, and watch it pass you by. Fight that fucker back, reptiles cant read Plato.

tl;dr, Call philosphy pointless and you are a reptile.

>carl sagan loving
>philosophy is pointless

These things do not go together.

>>3994481
yes and yes

File: 1375493987910.jpg-(120 KB, 500x500, 1372862379722.jpg)

120 KB JPG

>>3994475
I find them hilarious.

>>3994593

No it cannot, science can tell you the best way to live your life to achieve certain narrow goals, and science call tell you the natural processes that drive the propagation of life.

There's no scientific reason not to commit suicide.

You're just a mental midget who doesn't understand the distinction between explanation and cause.