/philosophy/ - Philosophy

I think the difference lies in the assertation of truth that lies behind the statements.

In order to embark on philosophy you have to first concede that literally anything could be true. Of course, in its most basic form, philosophy is a search for truth but at the same time that truth could be anything. Even something you or I vehemently believe as untrue.

The facts you are presented by any philosopher should be supported by some sort of proof that goes beyond the assertion that "this is true".

As vague as it may sound, I'd say depth. When I see these pseudo-philosophical texts on the social media, I notice a lack of depth. The shallowness makes it easy to absorb and use; it does not require the reader to think. Philosophy should make you think, really think, it shouldn't make you think 'gosh, I'd like that printed on a t-shirt/tattooed on my back'.

When you expose the two sides of the coin instead of only presenting one

really no difference. neither takes empirical evidence to verify, unless we're getting into philosophy of science or mathematics, and/or pragmatism

>>1715

Are you serious? Not only are you implying that empirical evidence is the only factor that can be a good measure of philosophy, but also that there's no difference between a good argument and a bad one beyond that.

In addition, you imply that philosophy of science has to do with empirical evidence. It can, but it doesn't have to - there is also philosophy of science that studies the nature of science itself. Though I suppose you would dismiss this approach on the grounds of just that - not being grounded in empiricy.

>>1715

Check out this positivist, guys. You have a very narrow view of philosophy. I suggest you read more books from different authors.

>>1716

>>1724

this is why no one outside of philosophy takes philosophy seriously

>>1715

>this anon doesn't know empiricism was a product of philosophy

>critique of empiricism is not simply non-science vs. science, but a school of philosophy contending with another school

>>1726

Why? Asking questions? Not relying solely and entirely on empiricy?

Though you're probably right, that may well be the reason. Not a very good but an understandable one.

>>1726

What are you doing on this board if you're a dogmatic empiricist? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm seriously asking.

No way.

Also, related link http://8ch.net/yuno/res/8.html

Most of those posted around on social media based themselves on 1-sided assertions that are shallow, don't require critical thought and are easy to absorb, but only adequately enough to seem "deep".