Philosophy is useless

[Satyr]

all of modern science is based on the philosophical concept of the #1.

Can this retard define the #1?
What is a 0?
Do so empirically, not theoretically or conceptually or philosophically.

The imbecile is proud of his computer, what is binary logic and from where does it come from?
Is nature dualistic?

Can this retard define what the "beginning" of the universe means without referring to any philosophical concept?
What is a particle?

Can this douche-bag explain what a SuperString is scientifically?

[ForgedinHell]

all of modern science is based on the philosophical concept of the #1.

Can this retard define the #1?
What is a 0?
Do so empirically, not theoretically or conceptually or philosophically.

The imbecile is proud of his computer, what is binary logic and from where does it come from?
Is nature dualistic?

Can this retard define what the "beginning" of the universe means without referring to any philosophical concept?
What is a particle?

Can this douche-bag explain what a SuperString is scientifically?

What I do know is that the best way to sharpen the mind is to study physics, or a similar subject. Unlike in humanities courses where idiots raise their hands and make lunatic comments in the vain hope that they are setting the world on fire from the sparks of their brilliant minds, in physics, if you have an idea, you have the burden of proving it sound. I have yet to see anyone with a philosophy background engage in thinking on the level of a physicist, and I doubt I ever will. Go ahead and pretend that your silly comments mean anything; they don't. I would rather side with the people who are exploring the outer reaches of the universe, devising new life forms, and uncovering the secrets of the underlying structure of the universe, than side with those who believe that their word games are meaningful or clever.

The universe has no beginning, because that would violate the uncertainty principle. Because you are ignorant of science, you think there is a beginning, and that somehow it can only be defined by philosophy. You are wrong on both counts.

[Satyr]

I guess the turd cannot define the very basis of his scientific philosophy: binary code.
His computer is built on it.

What does 1/0 mean, for this turd?
Where is it?
From where does it come from?

But I do not believe in beginning or ends, since I do not accept absolutes.
I asked the retard to define what 1 & 0 mean?
He is an empiricist, no?
Can the retard point to a 1, a singularity, or a nil, a 0?

If his science, his religion for secular cowards who must replace God with a concept, is not based on a philosophy, then can he define or present us with examples of a singularity or a void?

What is a SuperString?

The retard places science above philosophy yet science is full of philosophical concepts exposing, once more, how stupid, simple and ignorant this buffoon is.
He...has...no....clue.

[Lynn]

I have yet to see anyone with a philosophy background engage in thinking on the level of a physicist, and I doubt I ever will.

I don't know if you will personally see anyone to fit your criteria above face to face however I would dispute your comment on the historical basis that physics evolved from philosophy.

Timeline
Philosophy -> Natural Philosophy -> Natural Science -> Modern Physics

Consider that without Aristotle's Physics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle), there would have been no Treatise on Natural Philosophy, http://archive.org/details/treatisnatphil01kelvrich, and hence no modern physics.

[Satyr]

There's a reluctance amongst liberal fags to accept a linkage with the past.
It goes against their myth, derived from Locke's bullshit about a tabula rasa, that form nothing comes something...ironically reflecting the Jewish and Islamic and Christian doctrine.


That astronomy, cosmology, psychology comes from astrology is nonsense for these turds.

That modern human propaganda and mass mind-control methods (marketing, politics) is a derivative of primitive knowledge of husbandry and sexual seduction is nonsense for these morons.

That chemistry is a continuance and sophistication of alchemy is nonsense for these morons.

The gender roles are the application and codification of primal sexual roles is nonsense for these faggots.

That cultures and social systems are a manifestation of natural processes and how populations deal with environments is nonsense to these cowards.

That the present is a manifestation of the past and nature is a sum of all nurturing is nonsense for these nit-wits.

That appearances is a manifestation of essence if by essence we mean all past experiences, even those before our birth, is nonsense for these fucktards.

That ideas comes from the relationship of man with nature is nonsense for these lobotomized douche-bags.

That science is the application of philosophy or a particular branch of philosophy, is nonsense for these mental midgets.

That Democracy is an outcrop of a declining Hellenism which, at the time, was Timocratic, is nonsense to these pseudo-intellectuals.

That Humanism and Communism are secularized forms of Christian and Jewish dogma is nonsense for these examples of genetic filth.

[reasonvemotion]

wrote:

I have yet to see anyone with a philosophy background engage in thinking on the level of a physicist, and I doubt I ever will.

Correct me if I am wrong. I seem to recall it was once mentioned as Rick's academic background. Physics/Philosophy.

[ForgedinHell]

I have yet to see anyone with a philosophy background engage in thinking on the level of a physicist, and I doubt I ever will.

I don't know if you will personally see anyone to fit your criteria above face to face however I would dispute your comment on the historical basis that physics evolved from philosophy.

Timeline
Philosophy -> Natural Philosophy -> Natural Science -> Modern Physics

Consider that without Aristotle's Physics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle), there would have been no Treatise on Natural Philosophy, http://archive.org/details/treatisnatphil01kelvrich, and hence no modern physics.

So? Who cares? The fact is a doctorate in physics can easily become a doctorate in philosophy, but most doctorates in philosophy cannot obtain a doctorate in physics. Arguing that because physics grew out of philosophy in the distant past does not alter the fact that physics is the more difficult, and more precise, and more beneficial discipline to study. Look at satyr and his stupid questions, questions that science has already answered, but philosophy never can.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So? Who cares? The fact is a doctorate in physics can easily become a doctorate in philosophy, but most doctorates in philosophy cannot obtain a doctorate in physics. Arguing that because physics grew out of philosophy in the distant past does not alter the fact that physics is the more difficult, and more precise, and more beneficial discipline to study. Look at satyr and his stupid questions, questions that science has already answered, but philosophy never can.

ForgedinHell, I noted you are not exercising effective critical thinking at all. You seem to peek at reality from a hell-hole and is not able to think in a wider perspective.

Note the essential and principles of critical thinking,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_t ... spositions

Willingness to criticize oneself
Critical thinking is about being both willing and able to evaluate one's thinking. Thinking might be criticized because one does not have all the relevant information – indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable – or because one makes unjustified inferences, uses inappropriate concepts, or fails to notice important implications. One's thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial, due to ignorance or misapplication of the appropriate learned skills of thinking.

On the other hand, one's thinking might be criticized as being the result of a sub-optimal disposition. The dispositional dimension of critical thinking is characterological. Its focus is in learning and developing the habitual intention to be truth-seeking, open-minded, systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in making judgments.

Those who are ambivalent on one or more of these aspects of the disposition toward critical thinking or who have an opposite disposition (intellectually arrogant, biased, intolerant, emotional, disorganized, lazy, heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of reasoning, or imprudent) are more likely to encounter problems in using their critical-thinking skills.
Failure to recognize the importance of correct dispositions can lead to various forms of self-deception and closed-mindedness, both individually and collectively

[Lynn]

I have yet to see anyone with a philosophy background engage in thinking on the level of a physicist, and I doubt I ever will.

I don't know if you will personally see anyone to fit your criteria above face to face however I would dispute your comment on the historical basis that physics evolved from philosophy.

Timeline
Philosophy -> Natural Philosophy -> Natural Science -> Modern Physics

Consider that without Aristotle's Physics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle), there would have been no Treatise on Natural Philosophy, http://archive.org/details/treatisnatphil01kelvrich, and hence no modern physics.

So? Who cares? The fact is a doctorate in physics can easily become a doctorate in philosophy, but most doctorates in philosophy cannot obtain a doctorate in physics. Arguing that because physics grew out of philosophy in the distant past does not alter the fact that physics is the more difficult, and more precise, and more beneficial discipline to study. Look at satyr and his stupid questions, questions that science has already answered, but philosophy never can.

I'd hazard a guess that Aristotle would have cared .

Sweeping generalisations can be made that discipline x, y or z sharpens the mind, is more difficult, more precise, more beneficial etc, usually by people with a background in it.

I come from a physics background. I am here because I also have an interest in philosophy.

Why are you?

[uwot]

Hi ForgedinHell. I think what this forum amply demonstrates is that philosophy as practised by people who invent laughable alter-egos or who write as though were scripting a low budget sword and sandals flick is useless. More generally appreciating someone's philosophy helps you understand how they think, what they think and why they think it. Whether you think this information useless depends on what you wish to do with it and your ability to do so.

[Satyr]

So? Who cares? The fact is a doctorate in physics can easily become a doctorate in philosophy, but most doctorates in philosophy cannot obtain a doctorate in physics. Arguing that because physics grew out of philosophy in the distant past does not alter the fact that physics is the more difficult, and more precise, and more beneficial discipline to study. Look at satyr and his stupid questions, questions that science has already answered, but philosophy never can.

Retard...if science has already answered them then you, like a good worshiper, will have no trouble parroting these answers.

But you don't, do ya turd?

The foundation of science is mathematics....it is the primary code.
Define 1 or 0 for me, turd...start there.
Your computer, the device you are most proud of, is functioning on binary code...define it for me, turd.

Ironic that science never claims to have answered any questions but deals with theories...theories of probability.
But you, being the moron that you are, are under the impression that science deals in certainties in absolutes in final answers.

You know what's funny, moron?
The "forged in hell".
That shit is hilarious given your meekness.
More like "baked in a cookie oven" you are.

[ForgedinHell]

So? Who cares? The fact is a doctorate in physics can easily become a doctorate in philosophy, but most doctorates in philosophy cannot obtain a doctorate in physics. Arguing that because physics grew out of philosophy in the distant past does not alter the fact that physics is the more difficult, and more precise, and more beneficial discipline to study. Look at satyr and his stupid questions, questions that science has already answered, but philosophy never can.

Retard...if science has already answered them then you, like a good worshiper, will have no trouble parroting these answers.

But you don't, do ya turd?

The foundation of science is mathematics....it is the primary code.
Define 1 or 0 for me, turd...start there.
Your computer, the device you are most proud of, is functioning on binary code...define it for me, turd.

My point was that when you asked questions regarding the beginning of the universe, you assumed there was a beginning, and science has shown that there was always something present, and there never was a beginning. This shows the superiority of science over philosophy, since philosophers to this day waste their time asking questions about a beginning. Just like you did. Ironic that science never claims to have answered any questions but deals with theories...theories of probability.

But you, being the moron that you are, are under the impression that science deals in certainties in absolutes in final answers.

When have I ever stated that science deals in certainties? Never. It is actually getting boring around here. The best you "philosophers" can do is put words in my mouth I never stated. I can have a discussion with a child who will do the same.
You know what's funny, moron?
The "forged in hell".
That shit is hilarious given your meekness.
More like "baked in a cookie oven" you are.

"Forged in Hell" is an historical reference that idiots gave to some of Spinoza's work. And last I recall, unlike you, I gave out my ID, proving I am not scared of my own shadow, like so many others here. If you have to hide behind an avatar to make a statement that you would not make otherwise, then it is you who is the coward, not me.

[Satyr]

But turd many know my "real name" and where I live and many details about me.

Spinoza was another Jew secularizing God...or trying to make the absolute more tolerable to a mind that was becoming aware of its absence.

[Philosophers] all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic…whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea or ‘suggestion’, which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event…[thus] the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has as if it were clad his philosophy in mail and mask – in fact, the ‘love of his wisdom’, to translate the term fairly and squarely – in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on the invincible maiden, the Pallas-Athene:- how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this mask of a sickly recluse betray!

[uwot]

Hi Satyr. Nietzsche was talking about all philosophers;

"how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this mask of a sickly recluse betray"

in your case?

[Satyr]

And he specifically mentioned Spinoza as an example.

But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned.
Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about.