Is philosophy just a load of bullshit? - The irony of this post, i know..

[Lurker Child]

Eh, kinda. Philosophy has a tendency to become bullshit in the same way that regular masturbation has a tendency to become gooning. So long as you keep a discipline and know why you're doing it, and that why is not 'just because', you should be fine.

For me personally, any worthwhile philosophy is centered around some kind of practice and is a meditation of that practice. You are thinking about what you are doing. The practice grounds the philosophy to something tangible, keeping it from being a contemplation of ideas for ideas' sake, and creates a conduit by which conclusions of the philosophy can be realized and tested in the practice itself. Examples of this are a philosophy of aesthetics centered on a practice of art, a philosophy of language centered on a practice of linguistics and writing, a philosophy of analysis centered on a practice of mathematics.

Of course there are philosophies that are purely observational to some system, with no central practice. These require more care to keep away from abstract nonsense - think the physicist compared to the engineer. These philosophies largely contend with the world around us, with 'the way things are', and thus to keep them grounded one must have a method to confirm the correspondence of conclusions with reality. The most concrete of these is the scientific method servicing the natural philosophy. However, in other philosophies of this sort concerning society and history, the method is less dependable. One confirms their conclusions with records, intuitive truths, and the validity of survival in those doctrines of the past. It is serviceable but inherently flimsy. It is why I sometimes feel that social and historical philosophies are more elaborate opinions than philosophy.

 

[Devolve]

You should let your friend know even the Greeks made the same critique on a group called the Sophists, Sophistry is the word hes trying to use, too bad he didnt bother reading any of it, I guess assuming he just somehow knows better than everyone else, if he did he'd find out his critique is already acknowledged and discussed to death since 5th century BCE.

 

[Meriasek]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Well, yeah, absolutely.

 

[No. 7 cat]

Philosophy is the art of thinking and recording / analysing those thoughts for insight. Sitting in your room and pondering the familiar sights of it can be the basis for philosophy. It's an art of understanding that everyone should engage in.

 

[TruffleSpark]

you need philosophy so you can understand the philosophers song:

 

[Elderly Homosexual Negro]

yeah, there's only bad, new science done on it, it seems, it's driven by ideology, just the same as the old 4. there's def. more than 4 if you just open your eyes, going by distinguishing feature like bone structure. The "sub types" are often, not always, as distinguished as the main types and we are now way ahead of just looking at bones with genetics and all that but again, people stopped doing categories all together, it seems and when they do it seems wonky because most good scientists wont touch the subject, just my two cents.

Most scientists won't touch it because they 1.) won't get funding for it. 2.) get in trouble for even proposing it. Any biologist worth their salt knows the races and ethnic groups that branch out from them. You also have to bear in mind that any public research into the human races was discouraged after WW2 due to the stigma attached to it because of what the National Socialists believed and did. As i stated previously, there is no convincing evidence against it, it hasn't been debunked, disproven etc.. people just try their hardest to not mention it. Which is funny considering how much money gets spend on what people would describe as "globohomo" propagandaiin the modern era, you would think they would jump at the chance to disprove racial biology once and for all, and yet.. no one wants to even mention it.

But you see how that's contradicts the whole racial homogeneity thing, do you?
The most remembered and most productive cultures were multi-racial empires. The romans didn't care about race much, adopted foreign gods, shagged slave women and so on, not much of: "Doesn't look like me, gonna kill it." but much "Doesn't submit to my will, gonna crucify it." The difference between "explorer" and "klansman" alone is very deep and it's interesting that there's lot's of cutlures were one outweights the others, the most regressive bush people are very reclusive and insular, doesn't really seem to do good for them to be like that, culturally.


Well, you're quick to answer, I like to avoid double posting but don't premeditate much when not posting a thread.
But noted. Double post incoming in 3 2 1 ... and there it is.

Enlighten me to how this "contradicts the whole racial homogeneity thing"? i have no idea what you are talking about. Also, give me some examples of these multi racial empires. The Roman Republic/Empire was multi ethnic in some ways sure. They were an expansionist nation first and foremost.. initially only those from Rome itself were given Roman citizenship, then all Italic peoples and towards the end of the Empire when cracks were appearing all subjects were given citizenship. Yet, every nation that was conquered and colonized would have Romans there to govern and oversee it, the Romans who migrated there to colonise the lands would be segregated from the locals and only associate with the natives if they were slaves, servants or hired guards. Rome itself wasn't "multiracial" learn the difference between multi racial and multi ethnic.. you would be hard pressed to find a negroid or mongoloid walking around Rome. Possibly a few Chinese traders from the silk road? sure, possibily a few sub Saharan subjects (mainly Nubians) working as servants brought over from Egypt or parts of Northern Africa, sure. But it was absolutely not multi racial.

Perhaps you would like to talk about the Ottoman Empire? they were pretty successful and multi ethnic.. yet are still to this day hated by the Croats, Bulgars, Romanians, Greeks, Arabs, and Armenians to name a few for the brutality they showed to the ethnic groups they ruled over. Perhaps the British Empire? the most widespread empire of all time... Britain itself wasn't multi racial.. in fact, it was only in the late 1940's that other races started moving en masse here. Britain conquered over nations and governed over them, it wasn't some multi racial empire, it was an empire which spanned over nearly 1/4 of the world.. Britain was the head, and the tentacles were it's colonies.. do you really think the British empire was a multi racial "society"? the overwhelming majority of people here didn't want people from the colonies moving here, you can see as much with the huge pushback in the 40's and 50's with the immigration.


Europe for example has been multi ethnic and multi cultural for centuries, millenia even.. multi racial? no. There were ethnic, religious, cultural clashes throughout our history.. but that happens everywhere where there are competing tribes, countries, empires.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

In the words of a great man people talking philosophy should shampoo my balls

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

Enlighten me to how this "contradicts the whole racial homogeneity thing"? i have no idea what you are talking about. Also, give me some examples of these multi racial empires. The Roman Republic/Empire was multi ethnic in some ways sure. They were an expansionist nation first and foremost.. initially only those from Rome itself were given Roman citizenship, then all Italic peoples and towards the end of the Empire when cracks were appearing all subjects were given citizenship.

That's not true, for a long time people could attain citizenship through service in the legion and they adopted foreign gods all the time. Slaves shagged each other and were shagged by romans, lots of mixed babies. They adopted foreign architectural gimmicks all the time, too. And you only call them multi ethnic because, conveniently, 19th century anglo scientists defined all white europeans as one race but even if you go with that, there's still syrians and the likes from asia minor, who were def. arabs(or something). But again im not sure if these, too, count as caucasoid - if that's the case, it's retarded, they look as different from myself as Asians do, for example.
The question is was posing with that paragraph you reponded to was, still, that I don't think isolated groups with looks driven exclusion are doing culture better than those who don't, quite contrary, cultural enrichment, even though, it is memed now by the right as a spook is real thing. In don't think exclusionary, reacist great apes do better at culture, you just suck at culture by inviting people who suck at it. That may be, indeed, correlated with some races, like iq but it doesn't really mean that being racially homogenous, by default, makes people better at it. And to acertain, if some races actually do suck, compared to others we would need more than 19th century, american passport skin-color and bone memes. Genetics with ancestral migration maps, plox.

Rome itself wasn't "multiracial" learn the difference between multi racial and multi ethnic.. you would be hard pressed to find a negroid or mongoloid walking around Rome.

Mongels just weren't in the picture and there, indeed, were black slaves around. I didn't know american history lessons sucked this hard.

Possibly a few Chinese traders from the silk road?

Plausible but apparently so miniscule, opposed to blacks, that it's hardly mentioned - never heard it, thought, they supposedly had trade with them but over so many proxies, there's was basically no contact.
Before the romans conquered them all and europeans intermixed more, germanic tribesmen, gauls and the other looked very distinct. The romans, considered them beneath and described them like people now dunk on blacks, basically, because they looked so different from them. Again, your ethnicity vs race distinction is arbitrary. White includes all europeans with white skin because that was useful for anglo empire building as the us vs. them spiel. I have yet to see a, modern, scientific definition of it. Blacks are just universally fucked, like asians because they look too different but what I said about pre roman europe above, you can already see it in hapa babies, if intermixing goes on long enough that blurrs everything. Same with retarded debates of the 19. century about "white" blacks in the U.S. The key is to no let your society be overwhelmed by non-compatible foreign influences towards dysfunction. But that's not a race problem. Can also happen amongst people who, by your world view, just have different ethnicities.
The romans and brits did that but the brits then invented race spergery because dividing by looks is mid term static and fortifies the master slave order.

 

[Elderly Homosexual Negro]

That's not true

Okay.. i am going to highlight a few points and then i'm dipping because this is just pointless and quite frankly exhausting. I mean no offence, but i don't know if English isn't your first language and there is some lost in translation going on here or if you are just being ignorant for the sake of it.

1.) You have no idea what race means, this is evident at this point. You are blurring the lines between race and ethnicity.

2.) Roman mixed babies? what do you mean by that? mulattos? do you understand how miniscule the negroid population would have been in Rome? Multiple historians have looked in on this, there are also some easy to digest videos produced by historians explaining that the population of sub Saharan blacks in Rome would have been absolutely no higher than 0.5% even during the latter stages of the empire. The negroids being servants or slaves brought over from colonies in Egypt and North Africa. The BBC actually went quiet when their whole "Europe always had black people" bs was pumped out back in 2018/2019 because multiple historians called it out and they had nothing to back their claims up with.

3.) Mongols? i never mentioned the Mongols. I said Mongoloid. Yet again, this just proves you have no idea what race means.

4.) I am not American, i gave you a subtle hint where i am from in my previous post but i guess you didn't notice.

5.) Do you know what most Northern vs Southern Italians look like? to this day, Northerners refer to the Southerners as "Terrones" due to their swarthier complexion.. they joke that the Southerners are the descendants of Arab rape during the Islamic conquest. The average Roman citizen would have been olived skinned with fairer features than the modern day Italian, such is the same for the Spaniards, Greeks, Berbers and People of the Levant. You can thank Islamic conquest and occupation spanning centuries for large chunks of the mediterranean being swarthy. They are still Caucasoids though.


Anyways, have a nice day dude. And when you have time, try looking into races, ethnic groups etc.

 

[Neodanthril]

enlightenment philosophy and everything that followed it is almost entirely mental masturbation attempting to reinvent the wheel to distance itself from the Greeks because they were racist chuds, leading to these really pretty philosophical structures built on almost non-existent foundations.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

No.
And yes.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

Mongols? i never mentioned the Mongols. I said Mongoloid. Yet again, this just proves you have no idea what race means.

Yeah, keep believing in your 19th century race b.s., I tried to steer the discussion back to the hen and egg question of "racial coherence" vs "cultural capacity" several times. No asians, no mongloids. Either that or there's isn't much merit in ethnicty vs race because having mongloid people here, back then, would mean that there's multiple races to begin with, even in pre roman europe.

There's not much, modern, good race science, and I'm not subscribing to some 19th century anglo memes about race and ethnicity, even less, base a discussion on them.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

Do you know what most Northern vs Southern Italians look like? to this day, Northerners refer to the Southerners as "Terrones" due to their swarthier complexion.. they joke that the Southerners are the descendants of Arab rape during the Islamic conquest. The average Roman citizen would have been olived skinned with fairer features than the modern day Italian, such is the same for the Spaniards, Greeks, Berbers and People of the Levant. You can thank Islamic conquest and occupation spanning centuries for large chunks of the mediterranean being swarthy. They are still Caucasoids though.

There also were lots of blond germanic traits mixed in later on before any arab rape happened in Sicily.

Totally one race because america won ww2 and says so. Just because they can't let go of THIER race b.s.
German census works fine without muh 4 big races, as do most other countries'.
This with modern genetics and without nazi b.s. is what I wanna see more of.

 

[CallmeCicada]

Your friend is a retard. " It would have happened anyway" is such a brain dead answer. How, if you don't lay the ground work of thoughts and ideas for people to exchange how will it just happen on its own. Just because he doesn't like it personally doesn't mean it's not important, lol.

 

[Anime Waifu NFT collector]

Philosophy has a bad reputation because it became bullshit over time, someone on page 1 on this thread said that Newton did philosophy to give an example of how it's important, and how scientists in the past defined their studies as philosophy, which leads to the question: Is that what philosophers are doing now? Are philosophers of today physicists, mathematicians, engineers of all kinds and people who study biology? Do they also arrive to philosophical conclusions using their respective scientific knowledge as a basis? Of course they don't, Newton would never be a philosopher in the current year, he would be a physicist or a chemical engineer.

My point is that people who are productive members of society do not care about dedicating themselves with the study of philosophy nor do they pursue it as a job, in the present only useless retards that love yapping and feeling intelligent with nothing to back it up pursue philosophy, this abundance of useless people in the field also means that it became populated by retarded leftists who want to impose all branches of Marxist ideology using philosophy.

The fact that useless leftists populate the field is obvious if you consider how there are little philosophers that spew "right wing" talking points about effort, self sacrifice, family, not being a coomer and being an adult in general, philosophy today is all Marxist intersectional stuff and also about how things like free will doesn't exist (which means you don't deserve anything that you own and losers don't deserve to be poor, so we need the state to establish socialism because no one deserves anything they have); in philosophy you used to have things such as the idea of Natural Rights, which are the basis for our freedoms today and for the abolition of monarchies, now philosophy is about how you can't call bad behaviors bad because you only say that through your white and European lens, philosophy used to have value, and the past tense there is important.

Finally philosophy is not even a good use of your time if you want to understand the real world, knowing about very particular things in a field of science is not a good way of understand the world either, you could get a degree in mechanical engineering and that won't help in things outside of the mechanical engineering field, if you want to learn about how the real world works it's much better to read economics, you will know 10 times more about the world by reading 5 Thomas Sowell books than by reading 50 philosophy books, and I'm recommending economics instead of history because a lot of historians don't get basic economics, which makes them not understand basic things such as why some countries are poor and other countries are rich.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Some of the least interesting, otherwise seemingly intelligent, people I've had the displeasure of engaging in conversation have all been super into philosophers. Not philosophy, mind you, they did not seem to do much thinking about thinking, but philosophers. If you did try to have a philosophical discussion with them, they'd pattern match it to the closest thing they'd read, name drop, and mostly ignore whatever was actually said and respond as if you were parroting whichever philosopher they remembered.

I'm not going to bother doing more than skimming the Race Doesn't Real slapfight.



Africans and Eurasians should be considered different sub-species, if not different species entirely.