3 ms·
It used to be that the divide was between people who think that science and religion are incompatible and people who think that they are compatible. Now, I'm b
by jawns 13y ago
It used to be that the divide was between people who think that science and religion are incompatible and people who think that they are compatible.
Now, I'm beginning to see a surge in people who are just as dismissive about the value of philosophy in general as they are about religion.
My hope is that most of them simply misperceive what philosophy actually is, and dismiss their straw-man version of philosophy, rather than truly understand what philosophy is and dismiss it anyway.
- Retric 13y agoIf you actually study philosophy you come away with a deeper understanding of language and either nialism or science. The basic choice is to accept the is no way to seperate truth from illusion/random chance or accept that while the world might be an illusion it seems consistent so understanding reality or the illusion of such has value. Which is all well and good but hardly much progress considering 2000 years ago people said the same thing. PS: Actually building a human level AI solves none of the philosophical questions about consciousness which should say something.
- guns 13y agoPfft, what is philosophy? The natural sciences had almost completely robbed it of its intellectual validity by the mid-19th century, and this advance continues to this day. All that's really left to philosophers is vague discussion about morals and politics, and even these subjects are not safe from the scientific method. I gave up on the subject (after a long obsession with it, and a couple years of study at university) after reading David Hume's crystal clear presentation of the problem of induction. What a devastating attack on philosophy as a whole! What can you depend on without absolute certainty? It looks a lot like Bayesian priors, and a lot like science.