• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Correct. It has no power to deal with the fictional. Skydaddy and unicorns for example. Which is why we need to turn to logic to defeat those

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Your biases are showing. There are non-fictional things that science can’t solve. What makes a person good? What is the purpose of this universe and our lives within it? This isn’t even touching on the testing of an unwilling subject. How much can you bench press? If you refuse to take the test, I can only guess.

      There is a place in the world for philosophy, just as there is for science. Using the wrong tool for the job leads to poor results.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Which is why we need to turn to logic to defeat those

        Literally acknowledged it and you are arguing with me. What’s the point? I admitted it. We use philosophy to deal with the fictional. You mention meaning and I agree, meaning is a fiction. The only thing we are “supposed” to do is be vehicles of selfish genes, fucking until the sun explodes.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You keep on harping on those things that can’t be verified, while studiously ignoring those which are unknown. The only reasons I can think of are you are avoiding the topic or you are being a troll. There could be other reasons, which could be entirely valid, but they are unknown to me. That doesn’t negate the possibility of their existence, of course, because reality isn’t dependent on my knowledge, or belief.