I don't blame you, the non-abridged version is pretty tl;dr
lol ight I'll read it sometime soon then, mostly out of curiosity.
I saw that he uploaded the abridged version and thought "fuck the long version"
lol yeah of course.
tl;dr
Most philosophy I find a little tl,dr.
lol yeah philosophical writing is often confusing and requires a lot of going back and rereading phrases to understand them correctly.
In other words, you can't just blaze through a philosophy book. It's not a walk in the park. More of a...... hiking expedition.
I know that, thats why I'm not good at philosophy I'm to programmed by science. I want results than I can quantify. I don't do meta.
Science gives us objective truths while philosophy gives us subjective ones.
I like both really
hrug:
However it's important to know when to use either "method". Too many people today are either on the philosophy/religion extreme of the spectrum or on the science extreme of the spectrum. One needs to be right in the middle to fully comprehend the universe.
I can't explain what the red shift is by just thinking about it, just like I can't use the scientific method to explain what the meaning of life is.
I dunno, I find science takes a lot of reading back too. Especially when its something you aren't familiar with, because you can go through a whole chapter, and only at the end you get the part they were talking about on the first page, and you have to start over again.
And I can explain gravitational red shift just by thinking about it. Come at me brah. (I'm also apparently trying to make a new word, because I keep typing gravtity instead of gravity.)
It's not the red shift, it's the principle. I'm saying you don't need to be educated to be a philosopher, unlike being a scientist (and I certainly
don't want to make that sound like a bad thing). The philosopher asks certain questions whereas the scientist answers certain other questions. The former is educating himself, whereas the latter is educating everyone else, and both are important. Both worlds require some observation to an extent, but for different reasons.
Here's a good one: which one doesn't belong: a Ph.D in Philosophy, a Ph.D in Chemisty, a Ph.D in Physics and a large pizza?
A: The Ph.D in philosophy because the other options can feed a family ololololol
Children are the greatest philosophers; they know nothing, but they are constantly asking questions.
Another example I could use is that I can't determine through science whether my red is your red, and at the same time
I can't effectively explain and confirm oxidation simply by wondering how fire exists and without conducting sufficient experiments.
fun fact: phlogiston is essentially the opposite of oxidation.
Just look at Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe. It's brilliant and simple (while incorrect), because at the time, technology did not permit to see the galaxy as it is; heliocentric. Ptolemy went with the simplest and therefore more philosophically likely option (can anyone say Occam's razor?) that the galaxy is orbiting the Earth because of how he observed it*, but couldn't verify it. Not even Galileo could effectively verify his heliocentric model, but he did approach it with the scientific method (which is attributed to him) and concluded that Copernicus was right, and he was correct.
*There's also some theology involved; the geocentric model is largely comprised of circles, the "perfect" shape. One reason the Catholic church wasn't a fan of the heliocentric model is because the observed trajectory of asters aren't perfectly round, much to the dismay of theologians of the time.
VERY LATE EDIT: Turns out I really had no idea what the Ptolemaic system was. It's probably by far the most complicated model developed.