• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:38
CEST 11:38
KST 18:38
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou16Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80
StarCraft 2
General
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close" Weekly Cups (March 17-23): Clem Bounces Back DreamHack Open 2013 revealed The New Patch Killed Mech!
Tourneys
$1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st) SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
Is there anyway to get a private coach? BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Season 21 OGN to release AI-upscaled StarLeague from Feb 24
Tourneys
300$ 3D!Community Brood War Super Cup #4 [ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Current Meta Roaring Currents ASL final [I] Funny Protoss Builds/Strategies BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Chess Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Series you have seen recently... [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023 Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Our Last Hope in th…
KrillinFromwales
Certified Crazy
Hildegard
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1102 users

How to get started on philosophy? - Page 3

Blogs > Rev0lution
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
July 04 2010 05:29 GMT
#41

So, for instance, I was initially interested in theories of consciousness, so I took a course in Philosophy of Mind. This ballooned into further interest in consciousness, artificial intelligence, decision making, and ethics (and so forth), so I went after all of that too. There's not really a good way of starting in philosophy if you dont have a more specific interest (imo), and the best way of doing it if you do is to find someone who's already done it with a similar interest to give you advice.


Philosophy of mind is the only philosophy course I ever dropped. I was also interested in consciousness, but it feels more like a psychology course than a philosophy one. There was so much focus on the physical aspects of the brain that I found it rather boring. Might have just been the teacher, though.
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 05:41:16
July 04 2010 05:35 GMT
#42
Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."

(I spent a few hours arguing with a professor before I realized that hand-picking your postulates so that your conclusion logically follows isn't actually considered a circular argument in philosophy.)
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
July 04 2010 05:36 GMT
#43
I think that it partially depends on your initial view of it as well. If you view consciousness as a non-physical phenomena, or think purely physical explanations miss something about it, a lot of Phil of Mind courses are going to bore you/miss the point you're interested in.

I think it is a purely physical phenomena, so I was perfectly happy to get deep into neurology and stuff like that. Also my teacher is amazing.
Like a G6
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
July 04 2010 05:37 GMT
#44
On July 04 2010 14:28 ella_guru wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 04 2010 14:22 shinosai wrote:

You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.


"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?


I is ME of course. How can anyone miss that? Will I define that to you ? Unlikely, since my truth of it is already uncovered.


If you look at the wikipedia article under cogito ergo sum, you'll actually find that there's a rather relevant debate about the "I" in cogito ergo sum. It's briefly explained there. =)
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
Aus)MaCrO
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Australia349 Posts
July 04 2010 05:40 GMT
#45
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote:
So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.

You're a donkey, seriously.


Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
July 04 2010 05:42 GMT
#46
Come now. Haven't you heard some of them zen puzzles? They sound stupid and nonsensical, but actually sitting down and thinking about it leads to some crazy stuff.
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 05:44:29
July 04 2010 05:42 GMT
#47
On July 04 2010 14:35 BottleAbuser wrote:
Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."


I know something that would piss you off even more, then. According to David Hume, induction (and by extension, deduction) are not even valid.

The problem of induction: We believe because x happened before in certain circumstances, that x will happen now. But there is no link between the past and the present that justifies the belief. For example, because I dropped a coin and it landed on the floor many times in the past, I believe that when I drop the coin in the future, it will land on the floor again. But the past does not have a link to the future, so there's no justification to believe that the coin will land on the floor in the future. In fact, according to this logic, induction (and deduction, by extension) are CIRCULAR arguments! X happened in the past, and x happens now, so x will do so in the future because it happened in the past! Circular.

Therefore, there's really no reason to believe anything, as you can deduce and induce nothing.
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
July 04 2010 05:43 GMT
#48
Wait, how is deduction invalid by extension from induction?

P->Q, P, thus Q is a deductive argument, and makes no assumptions anywhere, whatsoever.
Like a G6
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 05:47:59
July 04 2010 05:45 GMT
#49
On July 04 2010 14:43 kzn wrote:
Wait, how is deduction invalid by extension from induction?

P->Q, P, thus Q is a deductive argument, and makes no assumptions anywhere, whatsoever.


The argument works for induction as well, it's just that David Hume never took it that far. But basically, in his works, he claimed that there is no relation between cause and effect. So that deductive argument would not hold water for him. Being a skeptic, this is not surprising.

Your assumption comes from P->Q. There's no proof in the matter that Q is caused by P, just because Q follows P.
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 05:48:16
July 04 2010 05:47 GMT
#50
Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.

Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.
Like a G6
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
July 04 2010 05:49 GMT
#51
On July 04 2010 14:40 Aus)MaCrO wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote:
So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.

You're a donkey, seriously.


Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?

I can agree with Chuang Tzu being one of the good examples of classical Eastern philosophy. I'm unsure of the other book, but those two only focused on Chinese philosophy. I dunno how much the "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy" touches upon Buddhism either, but if it didn't at all then it's missing a pretty significant part of Chinese philosophy as well. Also, Indian philosophy is quite different from Chinese philosophy, even when it comes to Buddhism. I'm just exasperated over the fact that you would dismiss all Eastern philosophy just because you touched upon just Chinese philosophy.
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
July 04 2010 05:51 GMT
#52
I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.
Like a G6
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 05:55:16
July 04 2010 05:51 GMT
#53
On July 04 2010 14:47 kzn wrote:
Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.

Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.


You yourself are now making a circular argument.

"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."

Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.

edit: In any case, the point is, philosophy can sometimes be used to prove all sorts of ridiculous things. We KNOW that induction is a valid form of argument, which is why it's kind of funny to see a philosophical proof that it's not. At the end of the day, you have to separate philosophy from the practical.
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
ella_guru
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada1741 Posts
July 04 2010 05:51 GMT
#54
It's like watching these guys

Each day gets better : )
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
July 04 2010 05:55 GMT
#55
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.

"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."

Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.


It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.

If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
Like a G6
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
July 04 2010 05:58 GMT
#56
Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.

Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-04 06:00:41
July 04 2010 05:59 GMT
#57
On July 04 2010 14:51 kzn wrote:
I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.

I find that there's often really big similarities in some areas. If you look into the concept of Sunyata in Buddhism and compare it to Existentialism you'll find that the similarities can be very striking. There's some philosophers from the 100 Schools of Thought era that are like mirrors to some Ancient Greeks. There definitely is a different colour between the East and the West but I'm not entirely too sure what it is that gives them those colours. I sometimes feel that the East generally works upon a more collectivist way of though while the West is more individualistic when it comes to approaching the human condition.

I personally prefer Western thought.
Malgrif
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1095 Posts
July 04 2010 06:06 GMT
#58
philosophy is dumb, thinking too much gets you no where. yes yes we all understand, take philosophy for what it's worth it's helpful in the sense that it makes you a better thinker when solving piratical problems, but if you argue with another philosopher, most times you get no where. and if you argue with someone who doesn't haven't a clue in philosophy most times it's not worth the substantial effort to make them see your point of view. philosophy is to just a search to what you believe to be true, not impose your truth to the world. remember every argument is fallible, even this one. lol
for there to be pro there has to be noob.
shinosai
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1577 Posts
July 04 2010 06:07 GMT
#59
On July 04 2010 14:55 kzn wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.

"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."

Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.


It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.

If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.


I agree that the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight. I was merely explaining Hume. For all practical deductions (one's based on real life examples), his argument against induction works just the same as deduction. However, if you were to do something abstract such as P->Q, P thus Q where P's relationship to Q was not relevant, then I think you are absolutely right.
Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.
kzn
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1218 Posts
July 04 2010 06:10 GMT
#60
I guess its more of a case that any practical use of deduction requires that one inductively support the premises. I thought it was like a proof that the method of deduction didn't work, which is what confused me,
Like a G6
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 22m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 205
SortOf 165
mcanning 56
StarCraft: Brood War
hero 1802
Flash 732
firebathero 417
GuemChi 359
Killer 339
Leta 259
Mini 188
Hyun 182
PianO 142
Soma 126
[ Show more ]
ZerO 107
ToSsGirL 76
Aegong 29
Free 25
Sacsri 15
Sharp 15
Rush 7
Bale 5
Mong 1
Dota 2
XaKoH 369
XcaliburYe169
canceldota73
League of Legends
JimRising 578
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1423
shoxiejesuss770
Stewie2K299
Other Games
summit1g7647
singsing798
ceh9594
B2W.Neo380
Hui .150
Mew2King56
Trikslyr13
ZerO(Twitch)5
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick620
Counter-Strike
PGL285
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 30
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• iopq 0
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV507
League of Legends
• Jankos1812
• Lourlo755
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
22m
OSC
6h 22m
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
13h 22m
The PondCast
1d
OSC
1d 2h
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Online Event
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
[ Show More ]
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
CrankTV Team League
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Wardi Open
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.