• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:23
CEST 13:23
KST 20:23
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week1[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL67
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [G] Progamer Settings ASL20 Preliminary Maps
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 623 users

Philosophy and Why I Think It Matters - Page 8

Blogs > TheGloob
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 17 Next All
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-30 20:06:45
July 30 2014 20:03 GMT
#141
Brian Leiter is a hack though, l0l. I don't think he even does any academic work anymore. His blog is basically a tabloid, and it's been like that for years, let alone months! If I did philosophical work on morality and heard someone refer to Leiter as a moral philosopher I would probably kill myself since Leiter doesn't even work on morality and the extent of his relevance to the topic is his moralistic gossiping.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-30 23:23:14
July 30 2014 23:01 GMT
#142
Let's consider the Foucauldian idea of the episteme. For Foucault, the episteme is the unconscious ordering of the production of knowledge, including science, in society. It is like a grid that is overlaid on top of culture, and defines not only what is known, but what can be known. It is a network that defines the conditions that make a controversy or problem possible. So science, situated as it is, a single discipline in a network of knowledge, is not just a tool that defines knowledge by addition, wherein one brick of knowledge is stacked onto another brick of knowledge. It does not just gradually add, bit by bit, in an ever-climbing slope of Progress. Such a short-sighted conception is a fiction that I likened to the tower of Babel. Changes in an episteme radically shift the underlying conditions for knowledge production, but in doing so, obscure knowledge that does not fit in the grid, and prevent new discoveries that cannot be mapped to it.

[image loading]

Foucault talks about a shift in the episteme beginning in the 17th century, what he deems the "Classical" age. In the Classical period, signs assume critical importance, as the means of knowing and the keys to knowledge. This is contrasted to the period preceding it, the Renaissance, in the 15th and 16th centuries, where modern science is typically said to have been born. Foucault says:

[t]he empirical domain which sixteenth-century man saw as a complex of kinships, resemblances, and affinities, and in which language and things were endlessly interwoven - this whole vast field was to take on a new configuration. This new configuration may, I suppose, be called 'rationalism.'


While the sixteenth-century episteme focused on what Foucault calls resemblances, wherein mental activity and thought consists in drawing things together, this changes during the Classical period. Rather than attempting to find some sort of kinship, attraction, or secretly shared nature between things, man in the Classical period discriminates between things, establishing identities and differences. This regime of identities and differences undergirds what he refers to as 'rationalism' above, and orders every field of knowledge, from grammar, to natural history, to political economy.

So for example, Foucault points out that "life" or "production" as concepts that we understand today within our own episteme do not exist in the Classical period. Natural history and political economy, ancestors to biology and economics as we understand them now, were ordered by different parameters for knowledge formation and understanding. Natural history had no conception of "life." All that existed were living beings, which were viewed through a grid of knowledge constituted by natural history. People like Hume would never have been possible in the Renaissance era, and people like Dawkins would never have been possible in the Classical period. But more importantly, it is not science steadily chugging along that changes the episteme, because science is merely one category of knowledge in a constellation that fits into a larger ordering of thought and consciousness.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-30 23:05:38
July 30 2014 23:05 GMT
#143
yes... the early chapters of the order of things... good read
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 06:55:21
July 31 2014 06:34 GMT
#144
On July 29 2014 04:54 puppykiller wrote:
The reason philosophers are annoying is they know they lack relevance. To counter this they try to worm there way into conversations by questioning any shadow of a presumption that an individual makes. Usually they do this to an extreme degree almost as if it is nothing more than an excuse to listen to their mouths make words. They latch onto other diciplines that actually produce value and like a parasite try their best to toy with the framework and find some lack of conistency or contradiction in a process when framework isn't even relevant. Their dicipline sits from a standpoint where it grants itself the privilige to judge everything on nothing other than an assumption that practioners of philosphy are intrinsicly wiser than practioners of other subjects because they have read more philosophy or because they have surrendered to a soccratic approach at reasoning or because they are compensating for the fact that they are nothing more than an art critic assigning narrative and value to practitioners as he or she sees fit.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with the socratic method or questioning the underlying framework of a pursuit or situation. Just recognize your role as secondary to the pursuit and situation as you depend on it and it does not depend on you unless you can some how convince it to. Also please become aware of how limited the abillity for a human to generate rational thoughts is and how small a part of the world it is relative to how significant it sees itself.


Fantastical, eloquent and funny post.

I'm not one who says philosophers have no role. I think there should be absolutely no battle between science and philosophy. Science is a way of finding out the nature of the world. How things work in reality. Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us. How we can or should use new technologies, and speculating about what the future might hold (speculative science).

In ancient times philosophy was the way people believed you could derive truths about the nature of reality. For the same reason it doesn't matter how well I know the Bible, or how many ancient Islamic documents I have read, it doesn't matter how much ancient philosophy I may or may not have read. It is clearly not the way to discover the way the world works. If you think it is, then I suggest you are treating philosophy itself as a religion.
No logo (logo)
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
July 31 2014 08:03 GMT
#145
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us.


That's still science.

On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
How we can or should use new technologies,


engineering i think

On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
and speculating about what the future might hold (speculative science).


social science or even futurology

On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
In ancient times philosophy was the way people believed you could derive truths about the nature of reality. For the same reason it doesn't matter how well I know the Bible, or how many ancient Islamic documents I have read, it doesn't matter how much ancient philosophy I may or may not have read. It is clearly not the way to discover the way the world works. If you think it is, then I suggest you are treating philosophy itself as a religion.


So do you thinking reading history is useless and tells us nothing about how the world works because it doesn't rely on empirical experiments
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 08:15:43
July 31 2014 08:15 GMT
#146
On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:

So do you thinking reading history is useless and tells us nothing about how the world works because it doesn't rely on empirical experiments


Do you think if I became expert in the history of alchemy that I would be any more knowledgeable about how to turn lead into gold?
No logo (logo)
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
July 31 2014 08:20 GMT
#147
yes.. you would probably be more knowledgeable.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
July 31 2014 08:26 GMT
#148
On July 31 2014 17:15 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:

So do you thinking reading history is useless and tells us nothing about how the world works because it doesn't rely on empirical experiments


Do you think if I became expert in the history of alchemy that I would be any more knowledgeable about how to turn lead into gold?


You know they have a term for the discipline where people spend their time reading and interpreting ancient books in their original languages. Classics. Have you heard of it? It's not really the same thing as philosophy.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
July 31 2014 08:34 GMT
#149
On July 31 2014 17:26 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 31 2014 17:15 deathly rat wrote:
On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:

So do you thinking reading history is useless and tells us nothing about how the world works because it doesn't rely on empirical experiments


Do you think if I became expert in the history of alchemy that I would be any more knowledgeable about how to turn lead into gold?


You know they have a term for the discipline where people spend their time reading and interpreting ancient books in their original languages. Classics. Have you heard of it? It's not really the same thing as philosophy.


Do they have a term for describing conceptually difficult ideas using other comparable examples?
No logo (logo)
2Pacalypse-
Profile Joined October 2006
Croatia9498 Posts
July 31 2014 08:40 GMT
#150
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 04:54 puppykiller wrote:
The reason philosophers are annoying is they know they lack relevance. To counter this they try to worm there way into conversations by questioning any shadow of a presumption that an individual makes. Usually they do this to an extreme degree almost as if it is nothing more than an excuse to listen to their mouths make words. They latch onto other diciplines that actually produce value and like a parasite try their best to toy with the framework and find some lack of conistency or contradiction in a process when framework isn't even relevant. Their dicipline sits from a standpoint where it grants itself the privilige to judge everything on nothing other than an assumption that practioners of philosphy are intrinsicly wiser than practioners of other subjects because they have read more philosophy or because they have surrendered to a soccratic approach at reasoning or because they are compensating for the fact that they are nothing more than an art critic assigning narrative and value to practitioners as he or she sees fit.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with the socratic method or questioning the underlying framework of a pursuit or situation. Just recognize your role as secondary to the pursuit and situation as you depend on it and it does not depend on you unless you can some how convince it to. Also please become aware of how limited the abillity for a human to generate rational thoughts is and how small a part of the world it is relative to how significant it sees itself.

Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us.

Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/220/
Moderator"We're a community of geniuses because we've found how to extract 95% of the feeling of doing something amazing without actually doing anything." - Chill
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 09:08:01
July 31 2014 09:06 GMT
#151
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
In ancient times philosophy was the way people believed you could derive truths about the nature of reality. For the same reason it doesn't matter how well I know the Bible, or how many ancient Islamic documents I have read, it doesn't matter how much ancient philosophy I may or may not have read. It is clearly not the way to discover the way the world works. If you think it is, then I suggest you are treating philosophy itself as a religion.


Here you seem to be equating philosophy with reading the Bible, the Koran, or "ancient philosophy," while tilting at the strawman you've set up wherein someone is supposed to have said something like, "no no, science is bullshit, if you really want to know how the world works, you should only do philosophy (which has, coincidentally, been defined to reside in ancient holy texts)."

I know you are trying to back peddle a bit on what you said, but that's not a "comparable concept" and I don't think the facile point you are attempting to make is very complicated anyway.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 09:41:58
July 31 2014 09:39 GMT
#152
If its not very complicated then why are you not directly addressing the point.

Yes, most philosophy that people quote does reside in ancient texts. Ideas which have long past their sell-by date. Said people then claim you can't be part of the discussion because you're not expert on these things. My comparison is to show that you don't have to be expert in nonsense to know that it is such.

Modern philosophy has to accept that discovering things about how the world works is done empirically. Once this concept is accepted then there is nothing to talk about. Everyone will accept that both Science and Philosophy have their place in the world.
No logo (logo)
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
July 31 2014 09:50 GMT
#153
Lol
son1dow
Profile Joined May 2009
Lithuania322 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 11:48:30
July 31 2014 11:33 GMT
#154
There's just so many people flooding this with ignorant "science is the only real knowledge", or "philosophy is just masturbatory esoteric irrelevant BS" kind of posts I'm inclined to just abandon the discussion It's sad that this is the standard state of affairs nowadays, and I'm saying this as a person who probably knows more about science, from inside or outside, than 90% of people I know.

2Pacalypse, that quote koreasilver quoted was dumb because he had no clue what philosophy is, and it showed in it. The fact, even if it was true, that science didn't need philosophy would have no relevance to it, it's just false period. It's ignorant to say it wasn't that dumb despite not having any idea what philosophy is.

Firstly, philosophy is extremely broad. It could as well have nothing to do with science and be of incredible use to us. Philosophy of language, mind, logic, ethics, or value theory in general, political philosophy, epistemology or anything else are valuable far beyond science.

It also deals with things below science (philosophy of science), it spawned the idea of modern science with falsifiability maybe three hundred years ago and continues to create new sciences, some quite recently. It helps scientists to do their work (I think neuroscientists work with philosophers of language to interpret what happens in the brain correctly). To think that philosophy has stopped it's influence on sciences, especially social sciences, is a joke considering how recently some of them have been spawned out of philosophy, or how connected they are with areas that will forever remain the domain of philosophy (ethics, political philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of language and mind, value theory). You just wouldn't do anything without an amateur understanding of these, and in many cases you'd do better with a better understanding of these, obviously.

The idea that ethics is useless is just a product of refusing to think of it, period. It's perpetrated by the silly excuse that we haven't come up with perfect answers, but that's based on ignorance on what it has created. Having groups of carefully crafted and thoroughly cleaned ideas is of absurd value to our society. Any position you think yourself clever and more rational than your peers to hold is probably originating, at least in print and in good form, from a philosopher. The reason you hold it and society benefits it is because of the philosopher. Western liberalism so popular among netizens around here wasn't there 150 years ago, and it was met with opposition.
You could say that it's all subjective, how there's no difference between caring for babies and eating them. Well, go ahead and do it then if that's your idea of morality. Chances are, you're never doing that, and once somebody does you'll be able to come up with logical reasons for why it's wrong. Any butchered reasoning the baby eater will have will be a worse than yours. Philosophers will do that better than you though. And they're advanced so that any ideas our descendants will hold 150 years from now will most likely have come from philosophy, only again it will be in butchered form. Any kind of argument between these will be an amateur philosophy hour, there's no way of escaping it but embracing it and becoming better at it... Via philosophy.


Political science has transformed the world quite recently, too. The advances in society everybody now agrees were great are there because of philosophers were there to come up with them when everybody was like fuck yeah we have slaves and dominate the lower classes, or damnit my life sucks but I can't do anything about it. Any advancements in our societies will have to come from philosophers' ideas permeating the society. They have to be freed of philosophical jargon, of course, but the less butchered they are the more clearly everybody will get them, and the more chances we have of advancing with them, or improving upon them later.

I don't see any way to argue this social, ethical and societal value of philosophy in any other way than what would be, methaphorically speaking, eating babies. Not that philosophers wouldn't perfect the eating babies ethos better than you would, any kind anti-ethics thing you can come up with is a thing in ethics, but if want to act within the society, in any case your brain will latch one to some semblence of philosophical ideas, and where you argue with your friends or foes will be where they either fall within a separate philosophical camp OR have worse of better philosophical grasp of the topic. The only way to get better at them is to study, once again, philosophy.

Finally, knowledge. Any kind of idea that there's only knowledge from science is denied by the very functioning of you and your brain. Humans rely on vast amounts of non-scientific knowledge to decide anything they need to. Look up the progress of neural networks (equivalent of the structure of our brain) in comp. sci., they've accomplished things thought not possible before by gathering a bunch of indicators and deciding via enough-consensus based educated guesses. That is knowledge that would be absurd to think is scientific, allowing you to do anything you do, ever, in your life.

Hell, history, classics or even literature are ways of acquiring knowledge, just to poke you there's-only-scientific-knowledge guys with no understanding of what knowledge actually is. The difference with philosophy from these arts is that while it's much harder to understand, because you have to understand the logical structure, it also is much more useful in any case where you have to communicate with other humans why your knowledge (or the closes thing you have to it in that area) is better than their fumblings towards it. Or to learn that their fumblings are actually better.

PS. I should add this great interview that explains a lot of what I said about the value of philosophy a hundred times better than I ever will.

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6854

Somewhat less important, here's just a brief list of what philsoophy has progressed in the last 50 years. I alone could add a lot, but we're just going for any proof it's valuable here, right.

http://www.quora.com/What-has-philosophy-contributed-to-society-in-the-past-50-years

Finally, here's a quote I've already quoted before that quite well explains how a lot of philosophy works, especially in the more murky areas, to give us knowledge and value without giving very definite answers. Not understanding this idea specifically seems to me like one of the main reasons why Philosophy is misunderstood. Said by Bertrand Russel:

“Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possiblities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what the may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familar things in an unfamilar aspect”


Have you ever met an ignorant person who has never considered your arguments, seemingly unable to even do it, but only went with biases learned through his life? Or a smart person who has seemingly considered all you have said and has good reasons for what he believes? It's merely a taste of what philosophy can give in rigorous academic form to such an absurd breadth of topics.



Play more Quake.
TheGloob
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
97 Posts
July 31 2014 13:59 GMT
#155
Well done
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-31 16:50:04
July 31 2014 16:46 GMT
#156
On July 31 2014 17:03 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
Philosophy should be a way of interpreting this knowledge into what it means for us.


That's still science.


Don't be dense. There's no scientific method for interpreting something for human meaning. If you think there could be i'd love to see a proposal for an experiment.


Show nested quote +
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
How we can or should use new technologies,


engineering i think


Come one. he said "should." engineering can't answer "should" questions. You know this.


Show nested quote +
On July 31 2014 15:34 deathly rat wrote:
and speculating about what the future might hold (speculative science).


social science or even futurology


one of those isn't a science, the other isn't even real.

On July 31 2014 20:33 son1dow wrote:
2Pacalypse, that quote koreasilver quoted was dumb because he had no clue what philosophy is, and it showed in it.


koreasilver knows a thing or two about philosophy I can assure you

On July 31 2014 18:39 deathly rat wrote:
Modern philosophy has to accept that discovering things about how the world works is done empirically. Once this concept is accepted then there is nothing to talk about. Everyone will accept that both Science and Philosophy have their place in the world.


your claim undermines itself. If there were nothing to talk about, there wouldn't be philosophy. So your claim is that "if philosophy would realize that it has no place in the world, then science and philosophy would have their place in the world."

this is leaving aside your weird unstated assumption that modern philosophy is somehow naive to the idea of empirical investigation into reality, which is cute
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
son1dow
Profile Joined May 2009
Lithuania322 Posts
July 31 2014 16:57 GMT
#157
On August 01 2014 01:46 bookwyrm wrote:
koreasilver knows a thing or two about philosophy I can assure you


I'm well aware, I was speaking of a quote that koreasilver quoted and basically mocked. Not of anything koreasilver wrote

Thanks TheGloob, by the way. It's full of typos or 'accidentally a word's, messy, not very to the point, structured or full from a top-down view, but maybe I'll be able to write better next time. But if it shakes the idea of philosophy being worthless or extremely limited for a single person, I'll be happy. Which I think your OP and the discussion following must have done in higher numbers.
Play more Quake.
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
August 01 2014 00:44 GMT
#158
One typical device people discussing philosophy usually use is to shift the goal posts constantly. If you include all of human reasoning within the realm of "philosophy" then you will of course find things of merit.

If I'm contemplating the relative merits of barely-legal vs milf, is that philosophy? How about the "mayonnaise philosophy" I have been considering, is it ok to eat with fried potato edibles?

While science was born out of philosophy, it is now clearly defined as a separate discipline. Both make theories about the nature of the universe. One makes it on the basis of observations, the other on a house of cards style theory upon theory style system.

Actually I like philosophy. It is indeed important to broaden horizons and take our reasoning to a higher level. It's just all the pompous self-satisfied rabid groupies of philosophy that have read half a dozen books, or have taken a course in university who have never themselves had an interesting thought in their lives, quoting this and that without being able to (and refusing to) have any kind of discussion in a coherent manner.
No logo (logo)
bookwyrm
Profile Joined March 2014
United States722 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-08-01 00:54:43
August 01 2014 00:50 GMT
#159
On August 01 2014 09:44 deathly rat wrote:
pompous self-satisfied rabid groupies of philosophy that have read half a dozen books


how many have YOU read?

edit: But yes, sure, most people don't know what they're talking about, about anything. What you say about philosophy follows a fortiori
si hortum in bibliotheca habes, deerit nihil
deathly rat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom911 Posts
August 01 2014 01:00 GMT
#160
On August 01 2014 01:46 bookwyrm wrote:

your claim undermines itself. If there were nothing to talk about, there wouldn't be philosophy. So your claim is that "if philosophy would realize that it has no place in the world, then science and philosophy would have their place in the world."


By "there would be nothing to talk about" I mean that nobody would argue the relative importance of philosophy. Everyone would agree etc...


No logo (logo)
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 1: Playoffs Day 5
ByuN vs SHINLIVE!
Clem vs Reynor
Crank 1391
Tasteless927
ComeBackTV 753
IndyStarCraft 143
Rex122
3DClanTV 83
IntoTheiNu 48
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Crank 1391
Tasteless 927
RotterdaM 156
IndyStarCraft 143
Rex 122
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 23201
Sea 19344
Rain 5241
Bisu 2754
Jaedong 899
Light 817
Hyuk 763
Pusan 602
firebathero 423
Mini 397
[ Show more ]
Stork 288
actioN 263
Zeus 219
EffOrt 203
Backho 179
Hyun 162
ToSsGirL 128
Soulkey 109
hero 69
Mind 60
JYJ41
sSak 36
Aegong 26
Shinee 25
Sharp 24
Rush 23
Sacsri 23
Snow 23
JulyZerg 21
sorry 20
Icarus 18
Noble 16
Free 15
ajuk12(nOOB) 12
IntoTheRainbow 11
yabsab 11
Hm[arnc] 9
Sexy 8
NaDa 7
Movie 5
SilentControl 5
ivOry 4
sas.Sziky 2
Dota 2
Gorgc6550
XaKoH 497
XcaliburYe363
League of Legends
singsing1703
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss787
x6flipin500
allub260
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor144
Other Games
tarik_tv23607
B2W.Neo568
shahzam541
crisheroes517
DeMusliM352
Fuzer 257
Liquid`RaSZi160
Pyrionflax145
SortOf98
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick27074
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 660
lovetv 10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2131
League of Legends
• Stunt516
Upcoming Events
OSC
1h 37m
Replay Cast
12h 37m
RSL Revival
22h 37m
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 4h
OSC
1d 8h
RSL Revival
1d 22h
FEL
2 days
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
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
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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.