Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

A historican retrospective of the present

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 23:12

How will historians look back on our current stage of human history? Will our faith in modern science seem as ridiculous and incomprehensibly simple-minded as we consider earlier people’s unwavering faith in religion? Will some other cognitive system replace faith in science as science “replaced” religion?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-18 23:31

It'll be like a giant jigsaw puzzle.  And just when the future historians think they have it all figured out, they'll see the Israel piece just doesn't fit anywhere without causing problems.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 0:46

>>1

You're late. David Hume destroyed the notion that Science = Access to Objective Absolute Universal Truths.

Scientists don't maintain the notion that what they do unveils universal truths that were originally unapproachable from Religion, instead they argue what they do is strictly empiricist observation to which they're culpable to fail at (and have done so in the past).

American Philosopher Richard Rorty writes about this extensively, in that this notion that science, religion and philosophy cannot grant access to any overarching universal truths is what creates a general sense of nihilism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 1:40

>>3
You should be proud of me for coming up with the same concept as a famous philosopher independent of him.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 1:54

>>4

whatever.  philosopher's just take common ideas that are hard to express and commit them to paper

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 4:28

>>5
Really? Thats not very DEEP. If thats true then I dont think they deserve the state of renown they get.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 5:18

>>2
lol wut

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 6:04

>>3
That's just a fancy way of saying "Scientists can only observe, analyse and predict process and properties in the natural world.". Hume was obviously a pretentious ass licker. Kant had a thing or two to say about Hume.

>>4
You should be proud for defining it in a simple manner, but since the idea is pretty straightforward as an intellectual achievement it reflects more on your objectivity than your intelligence. Not to imply you are below average intelligence.

>>5
That idea wasn't hard to express.

>>6
Truth.

>>7
There are lots of jewspiracy fags here.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-19 8:16

lol philosophy

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List