What is the purpose of philosophy today?

[@chmod0644]

In 2005 I was a sophomore and had not declared my major, but had taken a lot of philosophy classes. At the end of the semester my logic professor asked, "Any final questions before we go?" And I asked, "What can I do with my philosophy degree?". He replied, "You get to say 'fuck you' to anybody, no matter who they are."

[@gitduck]

🌸🌼

[@SQUiB.]

an understanding of self and the world we live in gives me the right to say "fuck you" and no piece of paper of acknowledgment from other people changes that. i know my place in the universe.

[@Dextermxck]

You’ve gotten so good at editing, I love it.

[@sophiasalazar9358]

So grateful for your insight and referrals....you are one of the few that can resuscitate my disillusioned admiration for philosophical inquiry. We must not allow for these ideas to stay privy and spiral into ruminating chaos...community is key

[@Naturelovers795]

I really didn't expect it . Honestly perfect I hope you continue doing this ❣️

[@stickittotheman00]

you're very talented making videos!

[@Nature_Consciousness]

It is insane how materialism is so dominant in our culture when you think about it: It basically says that the actual real world is the material world, inherently objective, quantitative, abstract and describable. The world of our experience is completely the opposite but we neglect it because it is just a minor or irrelevant world compared to the material world, which doesnt care about us, is independent of our experience, and causes all our experience. Empiricists are not really empiricists, they absolutely HATE experience. When you think about this sociologically, you realize that the world promotes the idea that the material world of abstractions (money, status, symbols, quantities, etc) is more real than of my own experience, so we become completely alienated living by this non existent world instead of the actual REAL one, we all know this material world is bad for us and it is causing all our experiences, is independent from them and doesnt care about us. So we repress this and try to be tough warriors facing Nature, because that is how the world is, the material world is.

[@rhythmandacoustics]

I think that the purpose of Philosophy today is to guide the individual about biases. As an empiricist in the 21st century, it is undeniable that Francis Bacon and David Hume's work have greatly contributed to Science, Engineering, and Business. Despite the Logical Positivist failing to produce significant results in Philosophy, except Thomas Kuhn, they did bring forth the foundations of many works and most notable in Computer Science, and Cognitive Science. The logical positivist goal was to find a way to reject the mumbo jumbo snake oil salesman pseudoscience thinking. If we look at today's mania. Lots of false beliefs are due to biases and beliefs not based on reality, or bad judgment based on incorrect information e.g. Social Media, Psyc Ops, AI mania, Stock hype, political conspiracies, etc. Philosophy usually has a bad reputation due to the postmodernists theorists. They just have bizarre ideas. Another problem of reputation that philosophy has that it has no practical or employable skills. Which gives the common philosophy major to be very poor. N.B. A good amount of the Great Investors are Philosophy Majors, e.g. Peter Thiel, Peter Lynch, Cark Icahn, etc. Which makes Philosophy actually very good for giving a good framework for how markets work. So despite that most philosophy majors go to law school afterwards, some of the wealthiest people are actually philosophy majors. Also some of the good programmers are Philosophy majors. I think though that the intersection of mathematics and philosophy actually creates very great thinkers. And history does shows that.

[@tohtaduman7343]

Well as a subjective idealist empiricist I would disagree with the points you made above. argue that the theory generation methods commonly used in the social sciences would be against the some aspects of Hume and Mach. It would be rather naive induction (or Inference, which is not induction) and eclectic positivist theory testing (see theory proliferation or competition). Rather on seeking signifier of a word or questioning whether a construct exist ontologically, scientists would solely ask "can we operationalise (measure) them?" for example a psychologist would let you read a paragraph and enquire your 'cognitive load', by asking few Likert-scale questions. Husserl also criticised this (naturalistic reductionist ) positive science method. I do think using (natural) scientific methods to enquire social entities would be a huge neglect to many aspects, and not coherent to the empiricist tradition.

[@rhythmandacoustics]

@@tohtaduman7343 I did not understand most of what you said but on you last paragraph, NO. Mere observation itself can be a very important thing. Also their are things called heuristics which although flawed , are which we operate through the world.

[@tohtaduman7343]

@@rhythmandacousticsthat naive realism is exactly what I disagree with. Most empricist-style scientific model theories (as found in psychology, social media studies) are generalised, seeking predictability and extrapolation to a larger population. I would agree that is instrumentalism (or 'constructive empiricism') but never corresponding to reality. Asserting the scientific naive postivism to be touching the essentiality ( "methodological essentialism") would be 'dogmatic' in the empiricist way. Scientism (a radical form of it even thinks science is omnipotent) gains its popularity not because of its intellectual level., but rather its practical power, collaboration with the industrial sectors and its established political power in the academia. On the other hand, getting out from the natural attitude (naive realism), realising the limits of science, and seeking to become philosophical (" being a friend to knowledge") would be more demanding from an individual.

[@rhythmandacoustics]

@tohtaduman7343 so what is your solution? Do you have anything better? You sound like someone who likes to talk gibberish but isn't saying anything important at all. Sounds like you would prefer living in the middle ages where anything can be attributed to some diety or anyone could be a witch.

[@mateoalar696]

Babe wake up! Celine Marie uploaded another videooo

[@WildJester-em1he]

Ethics, and building world view around beliefs, and testing ideas to have a firmer stance on your views that's what philosophy is for

[@UmiTurko]

Refreshing mind snack yee Celine rocking again

[@MatrixMaster777]

You are Stellar! You Will Always Be Stellar^^

[@Nicholas-cd3ef]

If there is a soul, Philosophy is the most effective preparation for the departure from the body unto that which is most good. If there is nothing of us that is immortal then it is a form of engaging entertainment that requires no company or money.

[@lupamartins8830]

Bro, this channel is such a find like fuck yea hey.

[@carlillos-d8m]

👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@Summer-kb2dm]

Points for quoting Cioran. Wish someone would translate Book of Delusions.

[@fifthsasquatch]

The parallel to between the earth being affected by man and in a sense, he is having a similar affect on his own philosophy. The rate of progress has damaged societys view - on the front of these two realities.

[@kostasv6980]

I don't think logical positivism is that influential. It is said that Putnam, Quine and Popper "debunked" it in the 50s and 60s. I am not aware of someone who still argues in favor of it, because it seems that much of its basic positions have been shown to be false ( verification principle ). I agree with you that people don't regard the humanities highly anymore, but I do not see how the fault lies on the logical positivists. That being said, I think many scientists have this positivistic attitude and I find it hurtful to science itself. Everyone would benefit if both scientists and philosophers had a good overview and respect of each other's field. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

[@exlauslegale8534]

What is the purpose of philosophy today? The same that it ever was: creation of the new concepts and values.

[@mohammedbechikhi4060]

I love you

[@Betweoxwitegan]

A) Loneliness Is not equal to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, that study has been criticised for its methodology B) Economic models can explain the 2008 financial crisis, people did predict it, we understand why it happend and we regulated the market accordingly afterwards C) This "soulless architecture" is a matter of personal perception based on preconceived biases, you rationalize this by saying its a bias the vast majority employ but this is not an adequate defence, I do however agree, in my hypocrisy 😂. Our streamlined and cheap modern architectural styles are a biproduct of capitalism and I also don't think it'll last, once the cost of negative psychological externalities are realized, it'll be phased out.

[@SneakySteevy]

Philosophy is the ultimate way of reasoning that leads to true spirituality.

[@Summalogicae]

Spoken like a true undergrad

[@SneakySteevy]

@@Summalogicae Est-ce que ce tu veux qu’on discute dans ma langue natal?

[@hasanunver2600]

Analytic philosophy is not equal to logical positivism or physicalism. Analytic philosophy today does not undermine metaphysics or value theory. You caricature it and your reception with it is unfair.

[@3bks]

man the topic is interesting, but a prefer to watch somthing which is not read, maybe is better to write a article and make a video version in a more spontaneous way, writing is like building a wall, while speaking is more like unbuild the bricks of the wall

[@ОЛДЫ-ОбществоЛюбителейДоистори]

Great vid!Raises many questions. Biggest one being: who is the guy behind those texts?

[@johnmanole4779]

1:34 hey! Cioran was a romanian! I am a romanian! You get insta like 👍from me!

[@karrarezzulddin8491]

Have you considered enrolling in the outstanding Master's program at KU Leuven in Belgium? Based on watching your videos, I see you as an ideal candidate for this program. It could open new horizons for you and pave the way towards doctoral programs at prestigious universities like Oxford, Stanford, and others. I believe this opportunity could be a turning point in your academic and professional career.

[@LowKeyTired-q7d]

What a babe, bro

[@zerozerozero333]

Philosophy is most of the time BS. It is barely scratching the surface of what is and of true understanding, thus why many of these philosophers turn depressed and suicidal like Cioran and Nietzsche. Intellectually understanding something is different from doing so practically. That is why the one worthy philosophy is Buddhism, which emphasises direct contact with yourself. Practicing introspection through meditation to basically looking into yourself to understand even where the basic desire of eating food comes from and what it is. Going through your day by being mindful and having true understanding that all views are wrong, and loving even the most detestable of society, never letting your happiness be affected by outside or inner factors. Thus, philosophers barely have any practice beyond intellectual insight into certain topics, leading to muddy and unfinished philosophies, or takes that are very much surface level, no matter how well argued and explained they are. You could dedicate a 400 page book to explaining how good apples taste, but did it bring you anything? Is that book worthy of anything?

[@planet7085]

That you must invent a worthless 400 page book titled "how good apples taste" in order to denigrate philosophy speaks volumes on your actual understanding of what you claim is "most of the time BS".

[@zerozerozero333]

@@planet7085 The worthless 400 page book is most of philosophy. I understand most philosophers trick themselves into thinking that they have a higher level of intelligence because of their intellectual pursuit. Philosophy can be good at introducing certain ideas that can lead to real insight, but at their core they offer no solution, because the people who had those insights were themselves many times broken and did not create a solid foundation for their ideas.

[@planet7085]

@@zerozerozero333 "most of philosophy is worthless" You can't even give examples of this. You say it's "good for introducing concepts" but that it "doesn't give solutions"... Philosophy develops critical thinking and so the idea is that you are able to figure the solutions out for yourself. The fact that you are seemingly incapable of this isn't a fault of philosophy. Philosophy is a tool. A hammer isn't worthless because the person holding it doesn't know how to use it.

[@zerozerozero333]

@@planet7085 I wasn't talking about myself. If the idea behind it is that people are gonna figure it out for themselves, then why are so many philosophers depressed and suicidal? Philosophy can be good, such as Buddhism offers a good framework for people. I see no reason for you to be so personally offended by my statements. Practice beats intellectual insights. You don't need to have the words to describe something if you experience and understand it.

[@planet7085]

@@zerozerozero333 I'm simply responding to what you're saying and you are resorting to accusing me of being personally offended. Really all you're saying at this point boils down to "philosophy can be good when it's the philosophy I like but it can also be bad - look at all the depressed and suicidal philosophers (even though I can only name two)." Do you think everyone who takes a philosophy major becomes depressed and suicidal? I think you might need to think a bit more before you speak.