You must log in or register to comment.
I once made a belt from old watches, now THAT was a waist of time.
I once knocked over a whole jar of dried herbs in the kitchen, now that was a waste of thyme.
I got fat eating lots of stuffing and gravy. I have a waist of thyme.
I once travelled away from the Greenwich Meridian, that was West of Time
I once dropped all of my chocolate on the floor. That was a waste of Daim.
In my lunch break I listen to Tom Waits off time.
Eh, I dunno, I think philosophy can be pretty cool.
- Logic and epistemology give us the tools to create proofs and algorithms, and it’s basically the foundation of modern mathematics.
- Having the tools to communicate and understand concepts in ethics makes society more secular (because ethics aren’t just handed down from on high) and hopefully more humane.
- Metaphysics I feel again moves us more toward secularism because it gives us ways to reason about the universe other than just “some big powerful boi did it (and he conveniently thinks you should give me money)”.
Philosophy at it’s core can be cool, informative, and even critical.
Most philosophy is fancy bullshit.
Just like anything else creative with a low barrier to entry, 90% is crap. The rest may be corn
Although, that corn may simply be undigested crap.
the math/philosophy overlap in set theory/logic makes me uneasy. the closer you get to it, the more the idea that “math is objective” starts to fade away. also pretty surreal to be learning philosophy/taking things as given in a math class. especially because you spend a lot of time proving that certain things are true, but you don’t ever say what it means for something to be true.
Math and science all have a philosophical core, it’s just that most of the time you don’t need to question it, so it’s easy to forget about it. Which is fine
All roads lead to Rome.
We already know that math isn’t objective due to Godel’s incompleteness theorem
how does that follow from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?
Godel’s second theory of incompleteness states that a formal system cannot prove its own consistency
I think that’s as close as you can get to “math is not objective”
before gödel’s theorems can be formally stated, you have to make a lot of assumptions about axioms, and you have to pick which kinds of logical rules are “valid”, etc. and that all feels way more dicey to me than the actual content of gödels theorems.
i definitely agree that gödels theorems can help to undercut the idea that math is this all knowing, objective thing and there’s one right way to do everything. but to me personally, i feel like the stuff that’s very close to the foundations is super sketchy. there are no theorems at that level, it’s just “we’re going to say these things are true because we think they are probably true”.
Indeed, and the reason why I think the incompleteness theorems are the nail in the coffin, is that otherwise you could at least prove that certain sets of axioms worked together, then you’d have some basis for the math you use, even if it was self-referential
But it turns out that is impossible, and what we choose as our foundation for the math we use is pretty much arbitrary. Although of course we have reasons to use what we use
Of course and then again is being even real
Logic and epistemology give us the tools to create proofs and algorithms, and it’s basically the foundation of modern mathematics.
Not that I disagree, but logic and mathematics have a rocky relationship. We thought we could marry them forever with set theory, but when they asked if anyone objected, Bertrand Russel stood up.
But what isn’t a waste of time, is listening to 1989 Belgian Techno anthem, Pump up the Jam
Nihilism doesn’t matter
I don’t believe in anything, even nihilism!
We literally spend most of our lives fighting over fancy pieces of paper we’re deluded into valuing more than one another, talk about a waste of time.
The unexamined life is not worth living. In the US at least, we are discouraged from asking the questions that can provide us some semblance of meaning based on what we actually value during our brief existence, because considering the big questions about the nature of being distract us from collecting more fancy pieces of paper for the master’s next penis shaped space rocket.
IMHO, the ability to ask and really feel the importance of why is precisely what makes our existence more meaningful than an ant’s. Rejecting philosophical inquiry and living a life of mindless acquisition and gluttony makes one about as sapient as said ant. You’re just following someone else’s script, and that someone usually has an agenda of maximizing your productivity and consumption with that script, so your life is more their life to spend than yours to experience at that point.
What is this tv show?
Cunk on Britain / cunk on the world
cunk on the world
Cunk on Earth, perhaps?
It’s an absolute banger. She’s great. Reminds me of a less wild Sascha Baron-Cohen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunk_on_Britain
It is UK specific so that’s why I’d never heard of it. I watched some clips and I feel like this way funnier if you like in the UK.
“Waste” doesn’t exist either. And don’t start on that “of” thing.
Maybe both is true, I don’t know
deleted by creator
