I'm not so sure about that. The most impressive people (impressive in the sense of "someone whose mind I envy") I've met, almost universally, seem to more or less be self-taught in this regard and come to their own conclusions. Of course I've never really interrogated them on the history of their education, but there's something telling in the fact that they are less prone to referencing someone else's work in the first place when it comes to thinking and argument. On the other hand the consuelas of the world are eager to jack themselves off using "philosophy" as a crutch for their own retarded ideas. Maybe I'm too jaded by substackers and xo types, but I feel like if it still really mattered I would've run into more impressive people who speak to their grounding in philosophy. I just haven't seen any of them.

"Much of 20th century philosophy was philosophy of language and logic and that stuff got absorbed into semantics, computational linguistics and parts of AI for instance" that's certainly true but I would argue that's just as much a bunch of smart people identifying proto-sciences rather than any grand tradition. I don't know how you could say that Turing and Focault were both in the same field even though they both have origins in "philosophy".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916625)

My personal favorite in the philosophy of science/epistemology sector is Every Thing Must Go by Ladyman/Ross. It is the closest to my personal views or at least there is a good amount of overlap. What's funny is I hadn't heard of it until more recently, I knew about structural realism, but not ladyman or ontic structural realism specifically. But llms kept flagging it across multiple unconnected sessions as it being closest to my own thoughts so I decided to check it out.

It is basically a polemic against much of traditional analytic metaphysics where they argue that metaphysics should not try to describe the world from the armchair using commonsense categories as primitives, but instead should be continuous with our best science especially physics, and should ask what general structure the sciences jointly commit us to (his main target being neo-scholastic metaphysics that treat intuitions about tables, persons, causation, modality etc as if they provide access to reality's Deep Structure). Then he basically argues that the world's fundamental furniture isn't made of those types of things, but structure--relation, symmetry, constraint, and lawlike organization. They have a really good discussion of Scale-relative ontology too, which was one of my favorite topics before I ran into this. It is much better conceptually than it sounds, I'm not really doing it justice, but also it can be kind of boring and dense at times. If you hate words on a page, might be more rewarding honestly to explore some of this stuff with Claude

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916845)

No. You're depressed, brown, and extremely online. So maybe you're not in the best position to haughtily dismiss anything as stupid and useless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916584)

You on the other hand have never divulged a single thing about yourself and only shittalk. You do not even attempt the core question of "what is the real point of Philosophy as it exists in modern society". You are a 40 year old posting this shit on the internet like some teenage boner police faggot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916594)

"Actually as far as my job..."

I'm talking about your life nigger. And the reason I'm spinning about this is that I expressed the exact same you did practically verbatim when I was 16 and cringe seeing a 40 year old man saying it.

Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about the big questions, even though they'll never be "solved" and we'll never "understand everything", as an exercise to think about how *you'd* like to spend the second half of your finite existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916596)

What specifically has philosophy done for you as a person? I mean give concrete examples referencing works.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916598)

I can't give you concrete examples of the value of philosophy, art, and beauty but I still consider them the best things in life. I can very precisely quantify the value of the legal services I've provided, converted into dollars which can be converted into material things with concrete utility, yet somehow this is the worst part of my life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916613)

You certainly can elaborate given your whole bitch ass argument is saying "maybe you'd be ahy as it would cause you to think about more Stuff that Matters". You should be capable of giving a few anecdotes where it's been the case for you. That quote directly implies you have thought about stuff as a result of being informed by philosophy, and you consider such thinking to have made you a better person, so you should be able to illuminate me here with some example from your own life.

"This the soulless engineer mindset I'm talking about. As if the value of something cannot be quantified there is no evidence it has value at all."

That is an extraordinarily shitty, lawyeresque line of argument which tries to pull a gotcha of "well you can't QUANTIFY this with NUMBERS, fucking ENGINEER". You are just trying to twist the implication of what I said instead of answering what should be rather straightforward question. I did not ask you to quantify the value of philosophy on a scale of 1-10, I asked that if you directly argue "you would be a better person having read instead of dismissed philosophy as it would cause you to think about more Stuff that Matters" you should be capable of giving a few anecdotes where it's been the case for you.

I like Daft Punk. It has made my life just the tiniest fraction better than it would have been otherwise. But I'm not arguing that listening to Daft Punk has made me a more informed person on the Big Questions of the Universe. You are, and you should be able to support that argument. Seems like you are really just grasping at straws to call me a shithead and assert your superiority though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916635)

On the whole though I'd say slightly worse, not because of any of the "allegations" but because any man who has had that many girlfriends past like 25 has something wrong with him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916554)

I don't doubt that everything in the article is true. It fits the phenotype and everything else about Platner. He's a hard man, self-centered, and, ultimately, not a good person. I've thought about the contrast with Paxton, another terrible man, but the difference is clear. While both are egoistical, Paxton doesn't wish physical harm on others or boast about taking pleasure in violence. And didn't knowingly get a Nazi tattoo and think it was cool. Do I think he's a genuine Nazi? No... not to that extent, but it tells me he has an innate attraction to an ugly side of humanity and we see it revealed in glimpses here and there, and this interview with the ex girlfriends show it. In a different context, a more unrestrained, more passionate world, I wouldn't doubt that Platner would be among the first to pick up the guns and wipe out families like mine for being too successful, too bourgeoise, people in the way of the new world he wants to build and blood is the price to be paid for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916585)

I think you hit the nail on the head re: Platner. The guy is his phenotype in the worst possible way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916854)

I'm not talking about Reddit types or super wealthy elites (who use liberalism as a power grab), but HENRY-type liberals that might actually post on this board. Can a friendly bort liberal please help me understand the following:

-"trans" kids: was all of humanity raising children wrong and incorrect about the binary nature of gender for thousands and thousands of years until the mass adoption of the smartphone?

-endless immigration from third world countries: is there really some belief that they will integrate and be a net positive to society (from a taxes paid vs. benefits taken standpoint) the same way the Irish and Italians were? Is that going to happen in a society where we can't uphold standards on people if they have darker skin because it's "mean"?

-"bail reform": must we really allow violent criminals to roam free unless (or until) they commit murder because it's mean to put black people in jail for committing crimes? Just lol at how we basically ran an AB test on bail policies and as soon as "reform" was enacted, violent crime surged. Why is this good?

tks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2#49916728)