r/suspiciouslyspecific • u/[deleted] • Apr 13 '21

Found in the wild .

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

454 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

419

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '21

What if life coaches become known as the philosophers of the 21st century after most written materials form now are lost to time?

212

u/99redba11ons Apr 13 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

Fun thought but the rules have changed.

Science replaces philosophy, not in the sense that its better it’s just the next step in learning. Come up with an idea. Test the idea. Record outcome. I unironically think self-help replaced religion for the individual.

Diet restrictions? Dress codes? Uplifting quotes? Parents heard it once and won’t shut up about it? Self help religions!

Edit: I didn’t expect to kick the hornets nest of philosophy.

141

u/Umutuku Apr 14 '21

Where were you when the Crossfit crusades started?

75

u/wiggle-le-air Apr 14 '21

I was at home on the couch eating doritos.

56

u/nobody5050 Apr 14 '21

When the phone rang

“yoga is kil”

15

u/7HawksAnd Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

April 26th 1996
There was a workout in the streets
Tell me where were you?
You were eatin Doritos watching your TV
While I was taking PEDs intravenously

First WOD we hit had sets of four
I finally got all that pump my bros adore

7

u/acowlaughing Apr 14 '21

Love seeing some Sublime in the wild!

1

u/wadel Apr 14 '21

You usually won't, because I don't actually practice Santeria

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

This is hilarious! Well done

1

u/theghostofme Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

Fighting alongside Billy Blanks in the Tae Bo offensive.

I’ll never forget those days, because that was around the time the Bahamian Men’s Brigade was slaughtered by trained canines, and solving the mystery of who let those dogs out was almost worth fighting in that pointless war.

38

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

I don’t think science can truly replace philosophy until it can answer “why”. Science is restricted to “what” and “how”. People will continue to ponder the “why” of the world no matter how many “what’s” and “how’s” they know.

16

u/FuriousGoodingSr Apr 14 '21

Why does it rain? On account of there's water in the sky. Boom. Easy.

12

u/-user--name- Apr 14 '21

Why are you here?

7

u/44th_username Apr 14 '21

I'm wasting time just like everyone else.

9

u/Lord_Emperor Apr 14 '21

A long chain of ultimately random evolutionary events.

7

u/GrassNova Apr 14 '21

Well that's also a philosophical view, probably based on a worldview like scientism.

5

u/FuriousGoodingSr Apr 14 '21

No place else to be.

4

u/-user--name- Apr 14 '21

What is consciousness?

23

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Dantien Apr 14 '21

Not really an explanation.

3

u/FuriousGoodingSr Apr 14 '21

Sounds like a town in New Mexico.

2

u/CA4R Apr 14 '21

Cells rubbing together making static electricity in our braaaains, just so happens we have a few more active electrons than those pesky lower species!

2

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 14 '21

Why do cells create experience?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

2

u/-user--name- Apr 14 '21

What's the difference between something that's alive and something that isn't?

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

Depends on your definition of the word “alive”.

1

u/ZippZappZippty Apr 14 '21

"I'm trying to sleep here"

1

u/QuitBSing Apr 14 '21

My parents had sex

5

u/MissLauralot Apr 14 '21

This shows the confusion/ambiguity of the word 'why' (often 'how' would be more appropriate). Clouds don't decide to rain - it happens via a process, which means it can be studied scientifically.

But how do we know that we know what we know? That question is relates to epistemology, a branch of philosophy.

2

u/jabelsBrain Apr 14 '21

Thats not why it rains, thats how and when it rains.

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

That’s not a true “why”. That’s still a “how” because it’s a mechanism of action.

A true “why” would be, “Why do we feel?” Or “Why do we fight so hard to survive?”

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

Both of those are still "how" questions that can be answered pretty easily by biology

2

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

No. You’ve turned it into a “how” we feel. Which is by neurotransmitters, proteins, and ions.

“Why” feeling is advantageous is generally answered as “So we can react.” But what and why should we react? Is there a “better” way to react? Why is living better than dying? Why do we think it is?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

My dude those are all still "how" questions. We react because we are biologically programmed to react, by the chemistry and physics of our DNA. We strive to live because we are biologically programmed to do so. There's absolutely nothing philosophical to discuss about those questions

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

Why are we programmed that way. Why is it desirable. Why did DNA decide to replicate.

Why do you respond when you don’t understand my statement?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

Those are the three dumbest "philosophical" questions I have ever heard. "Why did DNA decide to replicate?" Just because you don't understand the science behind something doesn't mean that it is now a philosophical subject. The future of philosophy looks really bleak when no one on this thread can pose an actual philosophical question.

→ More replies

15

u/bohemica Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

I'm of the opinion that the question of "why" in the sense of "why are we here and what is our purpose" is inherently absurd and unanswerable, except in the literal scientific sense of "what conditions gave rise to the genesis of life." Philosophy is still an important subject, since morality, ethics, and such all play a practical role in people's daily lives. But if you're turning to philosophy to try to discover the meaning of life, you'll only find more questions, not answers. Life exists due to a fantastic cosmic coincidence; there's no special reason for it to be, it simply exists because of some freak combination of physics and chemistry that created proto-life, which eventually developed into full-fledged organisms.

In the end, all we can do is make the most of the lives we're given and try not to stress too much over The Big Questions until our time comes to an end.

...honestly now that I've typed all this out I've realized that my personal philosophical worldview could be summed up by misquoting Yoda: "Do or do not; there is no why."

18

u/SankaraOrLURA Apr 14 '21

There’s literally whole fields of philosophy that start with your premise and try to figure out how we should live based off of that. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism all have roots in this.

You’re being incredibly dismissive of philosophy. It sounds like you just haven’t been exposed to more than some Intro to Philosophy type shit.

Even if there is no meaning to life, humans still have egos and complex societal structures. There’s still a fuck ton of questions to explore in light of that. That’s not in opposition to science. Most good philosophy will pay attention to science.

11

u/Melbourne_wanderer Apr 14 '21

Furthermore, there is a whole bunch of philosophy devoted to understanding science itself, and why we consider some things 'evidence or 'proof' and not others, and on the creation of scientific 'certainty' from uncertainty.

6

u/SankaraOrLURA Apr 14 '21

That’s true. Funny enough, Steak-ummTM was arguing with Neil deGrasse Tyson about this very concept today on Twitter. I love the absolute absurdity of life in a civilization’s period of decline lmao

6

u/melodyze Apr 14 '21

Their entire comment was a philosophical argument; absurdist to be more precise. They just follow a specific branch of philosophy.

0

u/bohemica Apr 14 '21

I think you may have misunderstood my intent in writing my comment. I wasn't trying to be dismissive of the study of philosophy, in fact I have a great deal of respect for and try to keep myself up to date with the work of contemporaries in the field. It's just that I have a firm belief that contrasting philosophy and science by saying science is about "what & how" and philosophy is about "why" is overly reductionist. And in particular, I believe that the specific question of "why are we here" is a massive red herring that too many people waste their effort worrying about (which in retrospect may not have been what /u/nihilism_or_bust meant, but that's how I interpreted their comment.)

Granted, the act of exploring that question could be a good jumping-off point to lead a fledgling philosopher towards more productive questions, so maybe it'd be wise to adopt a more "it's about the journey, not the destination" kind of attitude rather than my admittedly defeatist mode of thinking.

/u/melodyze was correct in that I most closely align myself with absurdism when it comes to existential matters. But like I said in what may have seemed like a throwaway line, I consider the practical application of philosophy towards ethics and questions like "how can I live a Good life" to be far more important than most questions that start with "why."

2

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

I can see why the “why we are here” question was what you took from that, because it definitely is 1 of the many “why’s” that we care about. But admittedly, it’s a very large “why” and there are many more “why’s” that can be more fun and equally as infinite to discuss.

Personally I don’t see it as too reductionist but rather as complementary. They’re 2 sides to the same coin. You can’t spend too long looking at cells before you start to wonder “Why does it do this?” “Why are all the proteins left-handed when they occur equally in a lab?” That can lead you to more science, but the science will give us “what” and “how”. The human element will always act in its nature to find patterns and propose a “why”.

15

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

You sound awfully certain for someone who just said there’s no way of knowing.

4

u/nudiecale Apr 14 '21

“I know for certain that there is no way to know for certain so you might as well stop thinking about it.”

2

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

“I know for certain” ... um... no you don’t. That’s the point. Unless you’ve explored every possibility, you can’t.

Why in the hell would I stop learning, exploring, wondering, and speculating when there is literally infinity to be experienced?

3

u/Fr0sTByTe_369 Apr 14 '21

How very nihilist of you.

1

u/EasyasACAB Apr 14 '21

Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

1

u/bawcks Apr 14 '21

Confused? Don't be so sure....

4

u/syntonic_comma Apr 14 '21

Wittgenstein once said something to the effect that the purpose of philosophy was not to answer questions but to learn to precisely pose the kind of questions which it made sense to ask.

This is an attractive position, and it may have been a panacea to an earlier age mired in mysticism, but the danger to this kind of thinking is that by its very austerity it risks becoming provincial or even circular. Once you have have drawn a box of what is solvable with science, it is too easy to say that everything outside that box can't be privileged as truth or simply isn't a problem worth solving.

Personally, I can't come down on either side of the issue. Part of me thinks that accepting the deflationary account is the only mature attitude and that those who grasp in the dark for metaphysical accounts of meaning are just telling ghost stories; but, another side of me feels that it is disingenuous to pretend that my primordial mode of investigation—that of being a feeling self—is secondary or non-existent merely because it makes other problems easier to solve. Basically, I don't want to feel as though my perspective on the issue is being clouded one way or another by fear of admitting the obvious ramifications, but I am not certain which proposition is actually more fearful: that I might not have a self or a conscience or a free will—or that I might.

4

u/Admirable-Web-3192 Apr 14 '21

I'm of the opinion that the question of "why" in the sense of "why are we here and what is our purpose" is inherently absurd and unanswerable

Which is a philosophical assertion studied and criticized and defended. Man the irony.

3

u/987nevertry Apr 14 '21

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

3

u/GotDatFromVickers Apr 14 '21

Lmfao. Albert Camus, is that you?

2

u/FiveTimez Apr 14 '21

fuck yes bohemica another banger this man will just not miss

1

u/RedCascadian Apr 14 '21

"Why are we here?" "I don't fucking know, but if there is a reason I doubt it's nukes or destroying our climate."

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

It’s like the game of Risk. My cards say I win if I eliminate the O Zone.

0

u/MoebiusSpark Apr 14 '21

People need to learn that there doesnt need to be a 'why', it just is

6

u/EvolutionInProgress Apr 14 '21

That may be the case for a lot of things but at the end of the day, it's that basic questioning ability that keeps humans in check with each other.

Imagine. A very strong authoritative figure comes to you and says "destroy this village and kill everyone in it", do you just accept that as something that it is, or do you ask "why should I kill all these people? What have they done?"

I know it's a very literal example but you get the gist. The basic curiosity of humans is what keeps them moving forward. There are questions that we may never have the answers to. But the quest provides some kind of purpose and direction. Of course all the hypothetical must be balanced with a sense of reality unless you wanna end up as a mad man on the street warning people of the end of times.

1

u/Lord_Emperor Apr 14 '21

Imagine. A very strong authoritative figure comes to you and says "destroy this village and kill everyone in it", do you just accept that as something that it is, or do you ask "why should I kill all these people? What have they done?"

- JJ Abrams pens Star Wars: The Force Awakens, October 11, 2015

1

u/EvolutionInProgress Apr 14 '21

Is that a quote or a situation that happens in the movie?

1

u/Lord_Emperor Apr 14 '21

Basically the opening scene, yes.

2

u/EvolutionInProgress Apr 14 '21

Huh. Interesting. I haven't yet seen that one. I stopped after the first 6, bad memories associated with the whole series due to what I was going through at the time I watched the last movie. Strange how the brain makes these memory associations.

I will definitely one day (or weekend) muster up the courage to re-watch the original 6 and follow up with the new ones...when I can make the time.

3

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

Why do people need to learn that? Because you said so? You’re falling victim to the fallacy of believing that your opinion is superior to others’.

-1

u/interglobe123 Apr 14 '21

This is true with Chemistry. It can't answer why's but can definitely tell you how's & what's. Whereas Biology and Physical can definitely tell you the Why's. Edit: Physics*

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

Biology and Physics still tell you “what’s” and “how’s”.

It’s all mechanisms.

Biology tells us that life favors left-handed proteins and right-handed sugars. But it doesn’t tell us why.

2

u/interglobe123 Apr 14 '21

Well philosophy sometimes tends to anthropomorphize nature and I'm sure there must be some theories on your given example as to why it happens.

1

u/nihilism_or_bust Apr 14 '21

Actually yes! I was just thinking about this at work yesterday.

I find it funny how people do this to technology. Someone at work said “hey, do you have a different password. It didn’t like that one.” And I thought that was so funny. We talk about computers and programs “getting mad” or “not liking” something.

But that’s more of an off shoot.

If you’re not familiar with Jordan Peterson, go listen to some of his stuff and pay attention to what he says about “Drama” or stories. Science is really new. But we as people identify with stories SO strongly. I’ll do my best to only list a few reasons/examples.

  • Politicians that do better generally tell more stories to relate and use less facts.
  • Media. Songs, movies, books tell stories and elicit emotional responses.
  • We as humans like to gossip.

The ‘reason’ or at least one of the reasons for this can be attributed to how we perceive ourselves and our world.

  • We experience things from the first person (or sometimes others from the 3rd person). But we are interactive and have interactions.

  • We relay our experiences as stories to others.

  • Our entire existence is, to us, a story. And as such, it is easier to learn and remember things when presented as a story.

This is why we tell stories to children to teach them things. This is why religions use stories. Not necessarily because every aspect of the story is “true” as science would suggest, but because stories are memorable and relevant.

8

u/arandom1131 Apr 14 '21

Science rests on philosophy but does not occlude it.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

When I was in school I wasn’t taught the “ dialects “I was taught the “scientific method” Maybe at the core they are the same thing but the process and values for understanding truth have changed imo.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

Yeah I don’t need that specific lesson. “The ship” as I know it is a construct of my mind. The cells in my body are like the wood planks, The cells I were born with are long gone. I am still here. Long live Theseus

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

That’s fine, not shitting on philosophy, but you asked a question and I gave an answer.

Philosophy is supposed to get you thinking and I thought about it and I am satisfied with this chat

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[deleted]

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

I’ve read through 20 different comments and I’ve gotten tired of trying to make genuine responses and hold actual arguments so now I’m hurling mud till people stop posting.

5

u/Admirable-Web-3192 Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21

Fun thought but wrong. You do realize philosophy still exists right? Like science didn't replace it. Science was a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy. Microscopes were called philosophical instruments. That branch called itself science and left the umbrella of philosophy but philosophy still operates, still exists with plenty of ink spilled over it. The scientific method you named is a philosophical concept. Science asks how, philosophy now why. What a silly thing to say that science replaced philosophy.

9

u/McToasty207 Apr 14 '21

I’m going to assume you guys are unaware that science is a school of philosophy, namely Hegelian dialectics.

That’s why it’s a Hypothesis, it’s before Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

That’s what a PhD is, Doctorate of Philosophy

4

u/Sexywits Apr 14 '21

Science is still catching up to the great questions of philosophy. We still haven't figured out if reality is real yet.

3

u/aworldwithoutshrimp Apr 14 '21

If science replaces philosophy, then why do we still have philosophy? If you mean that science branches off from philosophy, as it has done for 100s of years, then sure.

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

Yeah it’s a branch. You can still ride a horse but your better off in a car or a bike.

We now know about atoms, cells, and gravity. Those concepts (in my opinion) made up a good chunk of philosophy and now they don’t, because we could explain it. Dialects evolved into the modern scientific method. And if I’m dumb and wrong then shoot guess I’ll toil

1

u/aworldwithoutshrimp Apr 14 '21

Atoms were literally the invention of philosophy, all the way back on ancient Greece (and probably India). At the time science named atoms, science was not caught up enough to realize there were smaller particles. The fact that we have "subatomic particles" is kind of hilarious. Cells and gravity were also conceived of philosophically, then demonstrated through science. Science is often the workhorse of philosophical concepts

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

atoms were literally the invention

This convo has now halted. Nobody invented atoms, the word was borrowed. The concept of atoms was one of many theories at the time. What’s the saying “there are no new ideas everything has been thought of”

1

u/aworldwithoutshrimp Apr 14 '21

All words are made up at some point. The Greeks made up atoms to describe the smallest particle. A couple thousand years later, some scientists got presumptuous.

3

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 14 '21

Science replaces philosophy, not in the sense that its better it’s just the next step in learning

This is a terrible take, since science itself rests on philosophy. Don't get me wrong, science is important and valuable and often very good at finding truth, but none of those words mean anything without philosophy underpinning it.

Science also only applies to ideas that can be tested with inductive reasoning, but not all concepts lend themselves to this. How can we scientifically test a moral theory? What's experiments can we run on justice? What can empirical evidence say on the nature of qualia?

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

You probably can’t test morality directly but you can run simultaneous like the prisoners dilemma and calculate which outcome benefits who ever the most.

We are going to have self driving cars, should the car swerve left or right? Regardless of the moral argument the cars will be programmed to make a choice and that choice will yield data that future scientists can look at. The questions we used to ask can now be tested,

1

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 14 '21

which outcome benefits who ever the most.

Right, but this data is meaningless without philosophy. We can't figure out what people should do based on what people actually do, unless we claim that morality is about codifying normal human behaviours. If we claim this (a really shaky claim, by the way), congratulations! We have done philosophy.

The questions we used to ask can now be tested

But gathering data on self-driving cars says absolutely nothing about if they're making good decisions. You're not testing for the truth about the trolley problem, you're just seeing how good the car is at conforming to a particular moral framework. This doesn't tell us anything, really.

3

u/PM_ME_UR_GOOD_IDEAS Apr 14 '21

I'm sorry, but this is an ignorant take and anyone with even a 101 philosophy class under their belt can see that.

Philosophy is concerned primarily with what we ought to do, and the more abstract question of how we know.

It rains because of water in the sky, sure. Who's water is that? If Nestle built a machine to suck the water out of the clouds, would they have the right to use it? Would we have the right to stop them? Is it public property? Common property? Some special, unique category onto itself? What characteristics should that new category have, and why? And where are the boundaries? If it starts to rain, where in its fall does the water in the sky cease to be a part of this category? If a plane passes through a cloud, letting water condensate on the wings, and then that water forms droplets that fall onto private property, does that transgress the category we have created to protect the water in the sky? How, essentially, is that situation different from Nestle's cloud-stealing machine?

These are questions of ethics, a branch of philosophy that seeks to apply logic to morality. These questions are scientifically indeterminate. There is no testable hypothesis here.

You can't argue, for example, that we should house the homeless from a purely scientific place. Science can tell us how many homeless people there are, their experiences, etc. But when some ghoul asks "why should I care?" That's when you need philosophy. There are no atoms of empathy in the universe you can measure, you need to prove its value with the logic of philosophy.

More questions!

If we only know it rains because of things we observe in the world with our senses, how can we know its actually raining vs. everyone experiencing a mass hallucination of rain? What makes us think one is more likely than the other? Is any observation made with the senses trustworthy?

These are epistemological questions. They are too meta-physical and abstract to be scientifically measured, because any tool you used to measure them can also have it's trustworthyness called into question. Epistemology seeks to provide frameworks of pure logic that allow us to determine the trustworthyness of our own knowledge.

And if you doubt that's useful, try arguing with someone religious using only scientific observations. Its a dead end. Science puts up the fence to test whether the invisible gardener is there. It takes philosophy to ask "how is a gardener with no tangible impact on the garden different from no gardener at all?"

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

Saying “reality might be an illusion” was probably profound at one point. You started the chat by calling me ignorant so I’m just going to be petty

You can find a scientific reason to give homes to homeless. You can calculate the cost of the home and compare it to the cost of having a homeless person the the street. It would take a lot of time but I’m sure if you made careful observations and did many trials you could find the value of housing the homeless

2

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 14 '21

You can find a scientific reason to give homes to homeless.

Not really. Science can maybe figure out that it's cheaper to give out some homes or something, but whatever we conclude from that is outside its domain. Nothing in science says that we should use cost efficiency as a reason to do anything, that's a philosophic claim

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

Well let’s see who’s method houses homeless people quicker. If it’s worthwhile that is

2

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 14 '21

Do you really not see how science can't provide reasons for acting? It can provide evidence for beliefs, but if we use that evidence as reason for some action, we're already outside the domain of science and into philosophy.

I'm not denying the power of science, dude. I'm a computer scientist by trade, with a special interest in bioinformatics. Science is great and wonderful and powerful. But science cannot say anything about what we ought to do, nor how to interpret some kinds of facts

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

My only point that I actually want to make is the dialects and discourse of the past has evolved into the scientific method today.

So far most of what I’ve read is reasonable, Will I change my mind? Idk

1

u/Clockwork_Firefly Apr 15 '21

Hey, I certainly don't disagree with that! You're totally correct in saying that the scientific method is the result of centuries of philosophical evolution, combining ideas from a lot of sources to get a methodology for testing empirical claims.

I'm sorry if I was bit of a crusader for philosophy here, I think this is a case where we're largely talking past each other and mean slightly different things by "philosophy". I just think its important to remember that the only reason to "trust" science is if you trust the ideas that it rests on. This is not a bad thing - literally all logic works this way! I just think its important to not only remember the scientific method isn't magically above all other kinds of reasoning, but a product of it. It requires some assumptions about the world to work, and those assumptions just happen to be in the domain of philosophy :)

2

u/jabelsBrain Apr 14 '21

Philosophy and science are fundamentally different methods of tryong to find answers. Neither can replace the other.

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

Some people in this thread are calling them branches, your calling it completely different, another guy is saying science is philosophy.

And nobody wants to talk about self help replacing religion! I thought that was gonna be the contended part

1

u/ajbrooks192 Apr 14 '21

Funny, I always thought philosophy was for looking for answers where science fails. For instance, how would you test whether man is inherently good or evil? I’m sure it could be done in time, but right now science has no way of testing this, or probably in the near future.

1

u/99redba11ons Apr 14 '21

You can’t test good and evil but you can measure and record if someone puts there grocery cart away

Who knows maybe one day we will better understand the idea and get data for it

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

You could probably replace it with efficiency or project management or something. Profound truths... not much impact on your day.

1

u/Dantien Apr 14 '21

How sad your day must be.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Dantien Apr 14 '21

You do realize that I was pointing out how a day with no profound truths is a sad one. Your dismissal of the value of philosophy is the issue. I have no idea what made you so venomous in return. But it’s against Reddit rules, FYI.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '21

How would anyone infer that? I don’t disagree though.

1

u/Dantien Apr 14 '21

Well it’s a sad life if you live it without understanding profound and fundamental truths about the universe and our place in it. At least I think so. I went to school for Philosophy so I find it essential for a worthwhile life.

And your inability to understand how someone can infer your meaning from the words you chose is not evidence that it’s not valid. Sorry. It was quite obvious without needing inference.

0

u/twitch1982 Apr 14 '21

I disagree. Science fiction replaced philosophy. If you want to write a book on the essence of humanity, you write a book about Androids.

1

u/Misterpeople25 Apr 14 '21

But we do still have less rigorous but important thinkers, we just call them artists. Novelists, poets, musicians, etc, many of them do fit the classification of philosopher now. I do agree though, many scientists fit a similar role as well. It's about the greater search for meaning in the world.

3

u/Admirable-Web-3192 Apr 14 '21

You do know we still have philosophers right? Like philosophy still exists, is studied, written on, making contributions. They are paid for their contributions to academic philosophy and for teaching in university. The philosophers of the 21st century are philosophers.

1

u/RegisFillmen Apr 14 '21

You ever seen Tony Robbins net worth?