Science and math are just separate branches of philosophy just like the arts and religion are branches of philosophy.

Science and math are just separate branches of philosophy just like the arts and religion are branches of philosophy.

In the end they're just more applied branches of hermetic occult knowledge.

You're simply the modern offspring of hermes of trigestito.

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow that's like so deep

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The definition of philosophy is thinking, of course everything falls under that

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The definition of philosophy is appreciation of wisdom. Thinking isn't what it is, it's how you get there.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Science and math are the opposite of philosophy. Stop committing intellectual property theft.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      philosophy is how the sciences worked in ancient times, fricking moronic STEM homosexual.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        But that's wrong, you historically illiterate pleb. Science and math existed long before philosophy.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you morono understands the kybalion is like 1k years before the asyrians and babilonians?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >don't know what that is
            >look it up on Wikipedia
            >"is a book originally published in 1908"
            Lmao

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it's a book about the ancient teachings of like egypt.

            Do you know something can be like taught orally for thousands of years before is written?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      How are science and math the opposite of philosophy?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Science and math:
        >rigorous methodology
        >provide evidence or logical proof for their claims
        >establish objective truth
        >expand our knowledge
        >aim to make complicated mechanisms more accessible

        Philosophy:
        >no methodology at all, any moron can claim to be a philosopher
        >never justify their bullshit, expect you to believe it dogmatically
        >deny and attack the notion of truth itself
        >proud of spreading ignorance ("I know that I know nothing")
        >introduces illusionary linguistic complexity to trivial statements in order to appear pseudointellectual

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          methodology
          evidence or logical proof for their claims
          objective truth
          our knowledge
          >>aim to make complicated mechanisms more accessible
          Philosophy does every one of these

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me one objective truth established by philosophy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            We exist.

            There's must be an initial mover origin point of everything.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's must be an initial mover origin point of everything.
            Why?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            because the circle is the origin of everything.

            Being everything it eventually devolves into a circle.

            To exist you need to have a causation.

            Is it? It was in the olden days. Are we still in the mere categorization phase?

            every branch of the sciences is just a branch of ancient occult shit.

            Chemistry?
            Alchemy.

            Astronomy and cosmology?
            Astrology.

            Physics, biology?
            Philosophy.

            Medicine?
            Magic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because the circle is the origin of everything.
            >Being everything it eventually devolves into a circle.
            Are you sure about that? Like the Tan function describes a circle, right?
            >To exist you need to have a causation.
            Are you sure about that?
            What's your evidence to support that claim?

            >every branch of the sciences is just a branch of ancient occult shit.
            >Chemistry?
            >Alchemy.
            >Astronomy and cosmology?
            >Astrology.
            >Physics, biology?
            >Philosophy.
            >Medicine?
            >Magic.
            An a helicopter is just a ceiling fan with a few added bits, right?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            the circle is the simplest shape that can separate a being to become something.

            A cube, or a line, are more complex, or in the case of a line, lacks like a way to create some wrapping around something to cause the trapping of a soul.

            As it is up, it is down.

            We're vessells of God and created in his image.
            As such we have a wrapping object where we exist.

            I believe the ancients maybe derived a circle because of the observation we have a wrapping object that goes around us.

            >hellicopter
            Maybe you should try to respect what the ancients were trying to do in like 800-500 before christ morono.

            It's not like they had all the wonderful epistemological tools and tech you take for granted.

            Fricking moron.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have a closed mind so my time is wasted talking to you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I see you have no logical counter argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We're vessells of God
            Who of course doesn't need a causation even though your entire reasoning for the necessity of god is that everything has to have a causation, right?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          So they are all a type of "methodology"?
          How is that opposite?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is not a methodology and has no methodology. Why did you reply without reading the post?

            What does "PhD" mean?

            Nobody cares about amerimutt terminology that has lost connection to its etymological roots. Where I live we just call it doctor.

          • 6 months ago
            Cult of Passion

            >amerimutt
            lmfao...deluded beyond facts and reality...pure propaganda and ego narrative.
            >Where I live we just call it doctor.
            Wrong, you laude power, there is no wisdom or knowledge...otherwise you would seek knowledge, to seek the truth.

            Truth has no power to you...only power is power to you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why did you reply without reading the post?
            You mean the part where said philosophy has an open methodology that anyone can contribute to?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >never justify their bullshit
          The concept of justification via reasoning and the senses comes from philosophy, though.
          Can you even justify why justification is necessary without relying on the necessity of justification as your entire dogmatic argument?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The concept of justification via reasoning and the senses comes from philosophy, though.
            No, it's common sense.
            >Can you even justify why justification is necessary without relying on the necessity of justification as your entire dogmatic argument?
            This is dumb pseud sophistry. You're never gonna convince a rational person if you don't justify your bullshit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it's common sense.
            No, its deductive reasoning.

            >You're never gonna convince a rational person if you don't justify your bullshit.
            Sounds like more dogma and you trying to weasel your way out of justifying yourself which by your own logic means rational people should not be convinced by your non-argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You obviously don't know what the word deductive means.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You obviously can't justify your beliefs and even by your own logic you are not convincing, so no point trying to tack on more unconvincing arguments to not convince me of your point of view since I am already not convince and will not be until you can justify your dogma.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Keep those categorical errors going, buddy. You're hilarious.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Keep avoiding the standards you set for others while being completely unable to justify yourself with anything other than dogmatic statements like "common sense". You're hypocritical.

    • 6 months ago
      Cult of Passion

      What does "PhD" mean?

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    LET ME GUESS...
    >OP studied philosophy and is now trying to justify how they chose correctly and they are cleverer than anyone else when they use meaningless words to describe their useless masturbatory exercises
    Nailed it didn't I, lil' satre?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      science is just applied natural philosophy.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is it? It was in the olden days. Are we still in the mere categorization phase?

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which only goes to show you know little about math.

      Math is not the language of the universe... far from it.
      Mathematics is simply another tool. And other tools can do the job just as well and in some cases better.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Philosophy needed science so it rediscovered it.
    >Science needed philosophy so it rediscovered it.
    >Repeat, repeat, repeat

    The two go hand in hand, if you pardon the pun.
    To separate or isolate one from the other harms them both.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    continental philosophy is fake and gay and lead to the modern aberration of fr*nch philosophy.
    that being said, any good scientist is moderately aware of the philosophy of their field and philosophy of science overall. dumbass shit like lacan and derrida can be ignored.
    if you aren't interested in philosophy of science and logic, you are a worker drone merely using your degree for money.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can only express my utmost contempt for the so called philosophers of science. Everything about them is quintessentially cringe. They describe a trivial and well-known process, yet the way they describe it shows how they failed to understand it. With unwarranted arrogance they proclaim to know more than scientists while their writing resembles the ramblings of a 5 year old child who "explains" the world to his father based on his very limited level of knowledge. Except that these philosophers are grown up adults and allegedly educated, so we'd expect more from them than only childish platitudes. Philosophy of science is trivial at best, cringeworthy and outright anti-intellectual at worst. A complete disgrace for the historical tradition of philosophy as a pursuit of deeper knowledge.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        its only trivial because you were already taught popper and so you think falsification is 'obvious'.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Popper is a moron and falsification is largely irrelevant. That's not how science is done.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            'pragmatic science' is spamming journals with articles about theoretical nothingburgers that will never be replicated and have no bearing on reality, just to appear prestigious. 99% of 'practical science' is utterly useless and a waste of hard drive space.
            seriously, go to any journal of choice and pick out a random article and tell me how impactful it is for the real world.
            stop sucking up to modern academia and 'practical science' just for the 0.0001% of scientific articles that actually matter.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never defended the degeneracy of modern acadummic söyence. Unlike you I know how to distinguish it from actual science. Keep those strawmen going, kiddo.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            modern academic science is 'how science is done' these days, you moron. where is this actual science that you talk about? even open access platforms like arxiv are under the eyes of cornell, with the only alternative being vixra.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *