Name a more retarded pseudo-philosopher

Name a more retarded pseudo-philosopher

Damn sure ain't a "scientist".

These two might be the biggest faggots of this generation.

bump

He's an hero.

>Not a scientist
How else would I know that hot dogs don't power flashlights

Well, my dick didn't work, so, safe bet anything shaped like my dick, only much larger, would also fail.

how is Singer a pseudo-philosopher? he's qualified as fuck and smarter than you.

the fag with the bachelor's in engineering on the other hand. That's a pseudo-philosopher AND pseudo-scientist at its finest.

>he's qualified as fuck and smarter than you.
Because you know anonymous strangers, correct? He's a misanthropic, animal-rights spouting, liberal cocksucker. His writings and philosophy are the most childish rantings I've ever come across.

Stop trying to pretend like you understand any of his philosophy at a deeper-than-SparkNotes-level you fucking faggot. and yes, i know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt you are not smarter than him. I don't even need to know you

Holy shit you're butthurt. Did you meet him and get snubbed for an autograph or something?

Seeing as how philosophy is not even considered a science why even care about him?

This kike escaped a Nazi Germany that should have gassed his family. Fuck any pseudo-intellectual that follows this kike and then fuck their mothers. This asshole did a disservice to atheism and postmodern philosophy.

Elon Musk is the best answer to the question ever since Steve Jobs checked out. You know, wealthy guys who sell stuff and publicly parrot whatever is trending intellectually in academic circles in San Francisco or Boston like they came up with the idea themselves.

>being this STEMlord

wew

Well seeing as he specializes in Ethics I would say his contributions to Postmodern Philosophy are close to none.

It's very difficult to call a Moral Philosopher a Pseudo-Philosopher since their whole field of study deals with right versus wrong and is basically just opinions with "evidence" and reasoning.

Just saying, why get so worked up over meta-physics? It makes no sense to me.

are you actually 14 years old?

>postmodern philosophy.

Now I know for sure you're an autistic piece of shit.

Singer doesn't work in metaphysics.

He pretended to assess some of the major philosophers who were predecessors of postmodern philosophy.

Weak retort

Fuck you, you're probably a Jewish cocksucker like this Princeton shithead.

Sargon of akkod

Philosophy is in the realm of metaphysics as opposses to being a science.

Postmodern Philosophy is a thing. Just like with every other "postmodern" it deals with a looking away from the colonial viewpoint and more so at the aftermath and the future.

So because he has an opinion on the abilities and works of another philosophy that males him not a philosopher? That is a pretty dumb assessment itself. That is the academic world in a nutshell, he mentions these guys and the ones he mentions favorably then in turn mention him back at one point or another. It is very incestuous that way.

>He pretended to assess some of the major philosophers who were predecessors of postmodern philosophy.

How on earth have you got to the position where you think you know what you're talking about but know less than nothing? Someone who's never heard of "postmodernism" or "philosophy" holds beliefs about them closer to truth than yours.

shit shit shit

Metaphysics is not defined as "anything which isn't science" though. That's just not what the word means. Would you consider the disciplines of mathematics, history, art and law to all be "metaphysics"?

>Someone who's never heard of "postmodernism" or "philosophy" holds beliefs about them closer to truth than yours.
You don't know my beliefs on them, faggot. But just look at the prissy lips on this jewish cocksucker, it's obvious his slit of a mother taught him how to deep throat enormous cocks. Don't expect an intellectual conversation about a pseudo-intellectual, retard.

>Philosophy is in the realm of metaphysics as opposses to being a science

Metaphysics is just one branch of philosophy out of many.

>Postmodern Philosophy is a thing.

I know its a "thing" I just think its retarded. It wants to socially construct and relativize truth.

When talking of the Sciences Metaphysics are those subjects that do not fall within the structures needed to make it Science. There is a whole field of study for this, ironically it is called the Philosophy of Science. So the Natural Sciences are science and a few Social Science are as well, because they follow the criteria set out by scholars in the philosophy of science world.

History is considered metaphysics. Law and Art I would assume would also go to metaphysics (I guess it would depends on what you meant by the discipline of law, are we talking meta-law or applied law). Mathematics is considered a Science though since it tends to follow (and is used heavily in) the natural sciences in terms of how studies are conducted.

You're writing utter shit and you know you're writing utter shit. Why?

I won't dignify a putrid jew with scholarly words.

Metaphysics is anything that is not Science (when talking science versus non-science, which I have been doing this whole time)


Postmodernism can have its benefits as a tool to see through a different lens. However, it tends to be used in ways that give it a negative light.

I mean you don't have scholarly words to honor anyone with anyways so maybe you should have left that comeback in your repitroire...

fuck off. this thread has risen above your level of comprehension. go jerk off to suffocating on Singer's cock.

...

Any follower of Singer is a pretentious bag of shit. And, also, Singer long ago left his cock in his faggot, Alzheimer's ridden mother's ass.

I've read a little bit of academic philosophy of science, as it happens. It covers a far broader range of topics than just delineating what is science and what is not science. But that topic is covered, generally under the term of the "demarcation criterion". From what I remember, there is far less scholarly consensus about the demarcation criterion than you seem to be implying - defining "what is science" is a very difficult and very open problem. There certainly isn't a generally agreed-upon clear-cut set of criteria.

What I didn't encounter in any of my reading on the subject is the idea that whatever isn't science is "metaphysics". I'm really not sure the word occurred much at all - generally the spoke of demarcating science from "pseudoscience" or "the humanities" or "philosophy" or even sometimes "theology" - never "metaphysics".

>defining "what is science" is a very difficult and very open problem.
This. But what do you expect from a non-philosopher?

Stephan molyneux

>I mean you don't have scholarly words to honor anyone with anyways
I'm certain I do, but I reserve them for actual scholars or meaningful discussions, not for worms like this dickhead or his low IQ apologists in this thread.

It isn't actually that difficult, it just depends on one's ontological and epistimilogical stances.

While usually Metaphysics deals with Philosophy (notice the capitalization), metaphysics takes the "second" definition of the term which is just that abstract theory that does not belong in reality. I heard metaphysics thrown around quite a few times but usually the more common term would just be non-sciences. Defining what is science and not science comes down to your ontological and epistimilogical stances to define what is knowledge amd how we can know it. Then its just a matter of ensuring paradigms are correct.

Anyways, my original point was Philosophy generally is not comsidered science so why do we care about this man?

Regadless, I'm off to sleep. Enjoy the remainder of your day user.

>Anyways, my original point was Philosophy generally is not comsidered science so why do we care about this man?

Implying that anything and everything worth caring about falls only within the domain of science.

Do note I am speaking from a Social Science viewpoint (International Relations to be exact) and that may make my points seem a little different. Such as in Social Science it is very rare to have one agreed upon definition, and this spills over into our part of the Philosophy of Science, hence the different theories and stances of the social world.

>Implying that anything and everything worth caring about falls only within the domain of science.
This. There's more to intelligence than what is often, narrowly defined as science, not to mention, philosophy can even assist science.

>Social Science
Although it has its useful elements, it is many times what leads to both pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science, and it shouldn't cross over into philosophy of science, in my honest opinion, but should stay in its own category.

I was more trying to imply that if it is a non-science subject why would we care what one INDIVIDUAL says as opposed to the more general topics that have the potential to be used by disciplines that are right on the edge of that Science/Non-Science divide.

The only reason it crosses over to Philosophy of Science is because a lot of those IR scholars that go over there argue that it (IR) is "scientific" (because we try to emulate the natural science model). Other than that we tend to stay away from Philosophy of Science. Honestly I don't want to be a Social Scientist, I just need to get my degree in this field to pursue my dreams (trying for diplomat, and if not that then working at promoting cultural exchange and city diplomacy).