A
Anonymous10/16/25, 18:10No.16818517Is philosophy respected as STEM?
You may read a philosopher's writings, but you will never get his entire thought process. You can only develop an interpretation of his idea, never getting the full picture. Something will always be missing, as you are simply not him. And even if you knew his exact thoughts, your personal experiences in life might lead you to a different conclusion than the one he came to. At best it can give you an idea. But to use others' thoughts as a foundation for further thought seems wrong.
I always thought it was best practice to just let people build their philosophies from the ground floor with zero outside influence. Yet every famous philosopher seems to have previously been a student of philosophy. It's all a big circlejerk of bullshit.
Video format (.webm) not supported YET!
View here : Click here
53
Replies
A
Anon10/16/25, 18:22No.16818538
No. Science deals with the purely physical, not metaphysical. Philosophy as a part of technology or mathematics is laughable. Closest thing is engineering, but psychology ≠ philosophy. Philosophy as built as a foundational network can also never be proven since all philosophy is based on purely subjective experience, not objectively based on a set of rules like math is.
A
Anon10/16/25, 18:24No.16818541
>best practice
assistant to the regional manager detected
A
Anon10/16/25, 18:24No.16818542
>Is philosophy respected as STEM?
Who actually respects STEM at this point?>You may read a philosopher's writings, but you will never get his entire thought process. You can only develop an interpretation of his idea, never getting the full picture. Something will always be missing, as you are simply not him. And even if you knew his exact thoughts, your personal experiences in life might lead you to a different conclusion than the one he came to. At best it can give you an idea
Philosophy (e.g. the so-called Scientific Method) is finitely more reproducible than most published stoodies.
A
Anon10/16/25, 20:27No.16818661
Science grew out of philosophy, it used to be called natural philosophy. People didn't care about science much either BTW until it started producing technology recently, its prestige among the masses and in your mind lends nothing to their or your intellect
A
Anon10/16/25, 21:41No.16818768
Philosophy will never be STEM. This is why I hate analytic philosophy, because they all wanted to larp as scientists.
I actually prefer the schizo philosophy of Hegel, Heidegger, Deleuze because at least they knew that what they were doing wasn't really scientific.
A
Anon10/16/25, 21:45No.16818773
Philosophy is a primitive science like astrology. It was made up when people didn't know about real science.
A
Anon10/16/25, 21:47No.16818777
>Philosophy is a primitive science like astrology. It was made up when people didn't know about real science.
I like how 99% of attempts to undermine philosophy are just extremely dumb attempts at philosophical thought.
A
Anon10/16/25, 21:58No.16818789
>Tell us
>us
Off to a great start.
A
Anon10/16/25, 23:05No.16818835
Short answer, no.
Long answer, kind of... it attracts a lot of pseuds and atheistfags. But at the same time, some of the smartest people to ever live are well-educated in the field of philosophy much the same way they are well-versed in history and literature. It attributes to the well rounding of a man. It is also the base study of priests, who have historically held a significant role in the overall field of naturalism for the last 2,000 years
A
Anon10/16/25, 23:44No.16818882
I think that science and philosophy align where they seek to expand the available space to explore. Where they appear to provide concrete answers to things, both fall apart. Stunted little philosophy students have a greater tendency to believe they already know everything worth knowing, however. It is more difficult for scientists to fall prey to dogmatism, since 'finding out new stuff' is the job description.
A
Anon10/17/25, 00:17No.16818898
You can tell if a subject is more philosophy or more science by how much of it relies on gatekeeping schizos. On one end of that spectrum, if you build a better mousetrap or find a much quicker solution for some combinatorial problem, you'll get published no matter who you know because those things are real or easily verifiable. On the other end, anyone with a pencil and a thesaurus can perfectly describe whatever old or new dichotomies and archetypes they want, with none of it being any more or less dispositive than the rest of it, so the point is literally just to pass along the torch of academic genetics from one generation to the next and there's no value or interest whatsoever in publishing something written by a random schizo, unless you're sexually attracted to them (which isn't all that uncommon, see Genet and countless others). In the middle of the spectrum, you have stuff like maybe RH or QM.
A
Anon10/17/25, 01:26No.16818945
This retarded schizo and the retards who keep responding to it.
A
Anon10/17/25, 07:44No.16819062
why the fuck do you losers even post this lazy shit
A
Anon10/17/25, 08:56No.16819086
all philosophers are schizophrenic
A
Anon10/17/25, 09:01No.16819093
I really don't get the philosophy and science shitflinging. They're not even in competition in a lot of cases.
A
Anon10/17/25, 15:14No.16819276
it's arguably closer to math than math is to engineering