Be real with me, Sup Forums. Is philosophy dead?

Be real with me, Sup Forums. Is philosophy dead?

Other urls found in this thread:

radiolab.org/story/161754-repeat/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

well, depends on the way you look at thing and what you mean with philosophy

No.

the second enlightenment is coming

Breakthrough things. Not moralistic philosophy. Things about life.

Morality is used to explain what actions are right and wrong, so life and morality are connected.

Most philosophers would agree one cannot live a good and happy life without being moral.

If you want something interesting to ponder consider the theory of evolution, and realize that if we are a part of it then we are truly biological beings. Therefore, our sense of right and wrong must be based on actions that would help us survive selective pressure. In other words, evolution should be able to explain morality. By extension, a further study into how organisms interact with each other to further their species may yield philosophical insight.

Have fun!

Looking at moral from a biologists point of you isn't what I'm looking for.

If you'd show a painting to an artist he'd tell you about the colour.
If you'd show it to a mover he'd tell you the dimensions of it.
Gotta need to look at the right angle form the right point of view.

Idk what I'm even doing with my life
Even philosophy wouldn't change how shit life is.

Check'd.

The biological point of view is the right angle and the right point of view, because it is the REAL point of view.

Color, dimensions etc. are all things humans invent to organize reality. True, the study of biology does the same, but it leads to predictive power. Which is incredibly important because it implies consistency.

If you ask two painters to paint the perfect image of God, they would paint two different images. But if you asked two scientists to solve a science problem, they might have different methods but they will arrive at the same conclusion.

Again, this implies science is this correct angle and the right point of view. Therefore, evolution is the perfect lense through which we should study morality. Because it will lead to consistency and unity, which philosophy has never achieved.

Humans are individuals though. We're self-conscious and have the freedom of action. Flipping someone off isn't in my genetics.

You learn about expressing anger in that manner via cultural experience, and your need to express anger and react to stimulus is in your genetics.

There is a second level of evolution, called the evolution of ideas that can explain the majority of the actions the human populace has taken over time. Bad ideas (and the people that host them) are wiped out and the good ideas proliferate.

I agree that we have some semblance of free will but never to the extent that our biological nature doesn't hinder us at all.

>Be real with me, Sup Forums. Is philosophy dead?

You know, I have a PhD in Philosophy, and I honestly think there is still a lot of good work being done there. Certainly a lot more than in many other humanities disciplines. I worry about the future though. A lot of prolific philosophers tend to be weird autists who specialize way too much in weird esoteric areas that no one could possibly care about but other autists, but I suppose that's true of other subjects too; they all have their problems with esoterica.

Anyway, I got a law degree after my PhD and feel like it did me a lot of good. I care about big questions anyway, like what's right or wrong, and what should be legal/illegal. And consciousness. That shit is super fun to think about.

I once read this study.
It said that 0.2 milliseconds before we "choose" to do an action the brain already prepares it. People were asked to move their hand randomly and they saw that it went like this in their brain

Preparing movement 0.4 ms
Deciding to take action 0.7 ms
Taking action 0.3ms

Free will is a lie, user?

>Looking at moral from a biologists point of you isn't what I'm looking for.


Don't be so hasty; looking at it from a biologists point of view might threaten morality's alleged intrinsic normativity (i.e., you ought to be moral), but that doesn't matter if you care about being moral regardless. Which everyone born with a conscience does.

It is!
What about the fundamentals of life? Not in weird energy alien power shit but as in what's it about. And if we even have a saying in that.

This thread has been alive for a while. Love it.

I've read about that. It's scary shit.

If you want to hear about something REALLLY fucked, listen to this:

radiolab.org/story/161754-repeat/

Start at 6:30

Gonna listen. Hope it's not hardcore gore prank.

But I can fast if I choose. Which literally does nothing but encourages death. That fact alone implies one can step outside the path of biology, wouldn't you agree?

Just because the answer is consistent, even when reached by different routes, doesn't mean the answer is correct. It probably means the answer is useful, though.

The video of the people dancing was only like 4mins

...

Agreed, your answer is more correct. It's useful for our purposes, and even if it isn't 100% correct, its close to the truth because of repeatability. It's also more correct than any answer someone simply thinking about it could reach.

It's a back and forth. It's almost paradox. What if life is paradox and that's why it's so hard to grasp?
Like emergentism.
Atoms aren't alive. Molecules aren't either. So if that's the case cells aren't alive. And if that's the case organs aren't. And if that's the case we aren't.
Wait, life's more of a construct to understand incredibly complicated chemical processes, right?

But if it's all just chemical and A →B stuff then why do we have a free will?