4 ms·

I agree that Philosophy shouldn't just be labelled as an art form, although I think it's not too distinct from calling "Math" an art form. Like partly, but depe

I agree that Philosophy shouldn't just be labelled as an art form, although I think it's not too distinct from calling "Math" an art form. Like partly, but depends on what you're doing with it. I disagree that Philosophy should be some sort of objective tool to determine facts, typically I think of it as a way to explore new ideas, discuss insights into things which ~might~ have tangible outcomes. It's been a few years since i've heard it, but people were jumping to the theory of forms to interpret some of the modern ml stuff thats going around

haswell 3y ago
> I disagree that Philosophy should be some sort of objective tool to determine facts In order to rely on words like “objective” and “facts”, you need the philosophical underpinnings that explore the assumptions, meanings, and implications of those words and what they refer to. Philosophy isn’t a method for directly determining facts, but trying to determine what is factual is intrinsically linked to a philosophical foundation of ideas.
- Avicebron 3y ago
  I agree and admit I probably didn't phrase that too well >Philosophy isn’t a method for directly determining facts, but trying to determine what is factual is intrinsically linked to a philosophical foundation of ideas. Absolutely, although I would add that it seems to me that the majority of people don't distinguish the axioms that underpin our current understanding of the universe (e.g facts and objective "things") as being strictly an upstream philosophical decision leading to our downstream science from just science itself.