Conversation

Notices

1. Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 12:00:43 UTC Johnny Null
   Philosophers: "We're important!"
   Literally the rest of the world: "Eh."
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 17:51:43 UTC Johnny Null

     • reality karen teaduck III
     • me
     @racuna Touche. /cc @reality
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 17:57:54 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull rather like a child's attitude towards maths, really
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 18:13:08 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Or peoples' attitude towards watching cricket.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 18:15:19 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality @Racuna's point on Stoicism was good. Though I think you can arrive there via logic.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 18:17:01 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Other than that, zero use.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 18:24:04 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull i like you a lot, but this particular opinion is really stupid
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Friday, 23-Jun-2017 18:25:38 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality I like you. But you've failed to launch a convincing argument. I get it's your little pet project and all…
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:12:37 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull well i don't really understand your position. what's your definition of philosophy? wouldn't any argument be philosophical?
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:13:49 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull logic is philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:23:08 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality That's an excellent question. I'm probably too dumb to create one. I'll try.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:27:39 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality I have no issue with this first paragraph https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:28:37 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Sorry… first two.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:29:37 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to
     No, not two. One. Christ. Sorry.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:30:52 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to
      "Is it possible to know anything and to prove it? What is most real?"
     What can be more useless in this day and age?
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:35:19 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to
     "Why is a giraffe a giraffe? Does it have giraffe particles?"
     Christ, this is pre-science. Primitive.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:52:31 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull science cannot answer many of these questions, despite their relevance to it, e.g. http://ur1.ca/r2mvx
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:52:50 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull so i think that from science we gain knowledge, but it is a matter of philosophy how we classify and organise this knowledge
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:55:15 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull science itself is based on the philosophy of science, a set of assumptions science depends upon, e.g. an objective universe
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 15:59:56 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Nor did philosophy. Platypus.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:01:03 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality AKA: It was useful once. So let's maintain a philosophy circle-jerk.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:01:42 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality This is logic.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:02:11 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull irrelevant, the point is that it's a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem, because it is dependent on reason
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:04:39 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality And only philosophers employ reason.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:06:04 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Shit. My response to this never went through.
     It says logic is studied *within* philosophy.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:07:53 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull not only mathematicians use maths, but i'd say they are engaging in mathematics when they do so
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:09:28 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull but the results of this philosophical study of logic has implications for how we use logic outside of philosophy
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:09:36 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull for example, the development of formal logic
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:12:15 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Not equivalent. Logic is employed in different disciplines. Philosophy is UNNEEDED.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:13:15 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Can say this about math. Logic can be demonstrated by math.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:15:56 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull geometry is used in computer science and chemistry and physics, so mathematics is unneeded?
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:16:51 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull the direct study of things like logic and argument, under philosophy, enables their use in other disciplines
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:19:44 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality No. Math is *useful*.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:23:57 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull philosophy developed maths. philosophy developed logic. philosophy developed science. therefore, philosophy is useful
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:25:55 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality was useful « Fixed it for you.
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:26:22 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality By this logic we should still be teaching the four humours.
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:26:53 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull philosophy continues to develop maths, continues to develop logic, continues to develop science
   • reality karen teaduck III (reality@quitter.se)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:27:13 UTC reality karen teaduck III

     in reply to
     @johnnynull take some cursory looks at philosophy of x on wikipedia
   • Johnny Null (johnnynull@freezepeach.xyz)'s status on Monday, 26-Jun-2017 16:28:28 UTC Johnny Null

     in reply to

     • reality karen teaduck III
     @reality Used your abacus recently?