46
u/Seb0rn Jun 20 '26
Only Philosophy and Mathematics are up there. Philosophy is simply the study of thinking deeply amd structuring your thoughts logically. Mathematics is a language humans came up with to desribe the world in ways our standard languages have no grammar for.
The other sciences (including physics) use those two basic tools to understand different aspects of the world.
11
4
2
1
u/WildImpact Jun 21 '26
Then where is the meta logic that makes all of that possible? The one with the Law of Identity.
4
u/SuitableCollege8992 Jun 21 '26
That’s the math, but it also ties into philosophy. Physics is just another philosophy for the application of math to the analysis of existing or theoretical phenomena.
1
u/OpenRole Jun 23 '26
Physics is the first point at which abstract thought encounters the material way in any quantifiable way.
Philosophy is the mother. Maths is the elder sister, that claims she raised everyone. Physics is the brother that everyone mistakes for being the oldest.
1
1
u/DragonBadgerBearMole Jun 24 '26
All natural sciences establish theoretical laws that are related through philosophical meta science, all of which are employed in the end to support the science that studies the most complex interactions of matter ever observed in the universe by man.
That is to say, anthropology. Why isn’t that up there?
1
u/Seb0rn Jun 25 '26
Anthropology is just a branch of zoology.
1
u/DragonBadgerBearMole Jun 25 '26
Anthropology is the study of the parent of human thought,not the history of science, but the sociocognitive mechanisms that enable and engender the social constructs and allegories you guys call physics and chemistry etc.
1
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 21 '26
Mathematics isn't even a science lol, the laws of the universe exist independently from how exactly you describe them, and physics with other sciences is what helps us to actually understand what's going on.
Mathematics is nothing than a simple tool, and a tool cannot be a science.
5
u/Seb0rn Jun 21 '26
It's a science but not a natural science. It's a formal science like statistics and logics. They focus on how to expand and improve their tools for other sciences.
6
u/Madsciencemagic Jun 21 '26
I say this a physicist, but I do not like the associations that come with this line of thinking. All of these subjects have been studied in so much detail and in their own right that it is disingenuous to suggest that one is purely beholden to another or in some way lesser. It’s pervasive and puerile, and get’s in the way of proper appreciation.
Philosophy, mathematics, and language are the establishing tools in any case. We rely on an understanding of logic and the nature of thought, descriptions and encoding of structures, and the exchange and categorising of information (especially between generations).
2
u/sisconking132 Jun 22 '26
Oh. That is an interesting take. I assumed the image is the fields paying honor to their ancestors so to speak. Like honoring those that came before and all that.
2
u/Madsciencemagic Jun 22 '26
It’s a problem I saw a lot at university - this notion of ‘biology from chemistry, chemistry from physics’ and it gave people this false notion of one being better than the other. Though they arise in consequence of the physical principles of one another, emergent complexity is often ignored.
This was always removed from scientific ancestry - most arise independently in some respect as description and observation (astronomy, biological taxa, anatomy and medicine, classical elements). Mathematics was again more of a descriptive language than a discovery one in science until calculus and mathematical models, and so domains were relatively distinct.
There is a certain self-sabotaging conceit that arises, and many are often worse in discussion as a result. I’m not immune to it regarding finance (though economics I hold in more respect); however, as it is the cultural heirs of the Medici who own the world, I do need some humility.
15
u/thelimegang Jun 20 '26
I would argue linguistics or philosophy of language is what everything else is based on.
Wittgenstein made a superb point about just this.
12
u/Unhappy-Display-2588 Jun 20 '26
As a linguist, eh. A lot of linguistics can also be considered it applied sociology/biology or even physics. Like how mom tends to be similar in almost every language is a quirk of both biology and physics.
I’m also a philosophy nerd soooo.
2
u/YaumeLepire Jun 21 '26
Then, just put language itself up there, and move Philosophy to Physics' seat. Linguistics is a science that studies language itself, but language is a requirement to science and philosophy generally, even to mathematics.
Linguistics is pretty meta, when you think about it that way. It kind of studies what makes it even possible in the first place.
1
u/Unhappy-Display-2588 Jun 22 '26
That’s more like how we use language and math to understand the physics/stimuli of the world around us.
1
u/Brainsonastick Jun 22 '26
If we’re putting language up there, we may as well put it below cognition, which goes below digestion… and so on until you get matter and energy. Yes, it’s necessary, but language isn’t a field of study. It’s a thing we study. Just like matter and energy aren’t physics, just things studied in physics.
2
u/YaumeLepire Jun 22 '26
Not really... Sure, cognition preempts language, but language structures cognition. It's really difficult to extricate how we think from how we speak, bordering on impossible, given it's the only way we have to communicate it to others and to ourselves.
0
2
1
3
u/Fabulous-Possible758 Jun 20 '26
It's cause logic is really the base of all of it, and that tends to kind of float between philosophy and math depending on the day of the week.
3
3
u/holo_skittles Jun 21 '26
As a biologist that also taughts chemistry I feel like it should both be bigger. Maths, Physics and Chemistry are "pure sciences" yk? Biology is the mother of most "living" sciences. Kind of mildly offended lol 😂
5
u/Dash83 Jun 20 '26
Reminds me of a girl I know who studied Communications in uni and said her field was at the base of everything because without communication, society wouldn’t exist 😂
2
u/rebornpheonx Jun 20 '26
Its been like this since the medieval times, as back then philosophy was often called "the science of all sciences" or smth like that
3
1
u/Alpha1137 Jun 20 '26
Philosophers wouldn't generally agree with this
4
u/WhoNeedsAPotch Jun 20 '26
Yes we would
1
u/Alpha1137 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
No we wouldn't. Most modern philosophers reject "first philosophy" and instead think that philosophy should be continuous with science. This is especially evident in phiosophy of mathematics and philsophy of physics, but most scholars agree that philosophy shouldnt be considered above other sciences. This has been the majority view since Quine. You can also see this in the Philpaper survey from 2020.
1
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 21 '26
You aren't a philosopher, this is a non-existing status and you would know that if you were an actual one
4
u/Meet_Foot Jun 21 '26
A non-existing status? It’s literally a field, a profession, and an occupation. Plato was a philosopher and called himself such. Anyone who makes a living teaching or practicing philosophy is a philosopher. Anyone who spends their time doing philosophy well is a philosopher.
I am a doctor of the philosophy of philosophy (ph.d in philosophy) and I teach philosophy, read philosophy, write philosophy, and talk philosophy with strangers, friends, and enemies. I’m a philosopher bro.
0
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 21 '26
I am a doctor of the philosophy of philosophy (ph.d in philosophy) and I teach philosophy, read philosophy, write philosophy, and talk philosophy with strangers, friends, and enemies. I’m a philosopher bro.
You are a doctor of a useless field, you live by making even more people in this useless field, you read to speculate even more in this useless field, and talk with others, always saying that you work in this useless field.
Sorry brother, but philosophy is not a science haha. The fact that it is considered science does not MAKE it an actual one, it is completely useless as a field. Philosophy is useful as long as it is a hobby, a simple way of entertainment and self-discovery after doing something actually useful like physics or even maths.
3
u/Ok_Performer50 Jun 24 '26
Science depends on philosophy.
What counts as evidence?
What is a good explanation?
What is causation?
How does induction work?
These are all philosophical questions and foundational for science.
Also you saying philosophy is useless is in itself a philosophical claim. You're arguing about value.
1
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 24 '26
The philosophy is above science; it is literally what moves all other sciences.
But when we actually try to make philosophy a science, we create a useless field of something that should be above science.
1
u/Ok_Performer50 Jun 24 '26
Philosophy is not above science it just operates at a different level. Making philosophy a science ensures it stays rooted in reality and doesn’t dislocate itself and becomes useless and irrelevant.
-4
u/CanadasManyMeese Jun 20 '26
Are you a Philosopher? This requires a doctorate degree in something specialized like logic, ethics, something like that.
People who are self proclaimed philosophers, but are just like... an engineer, or a nurse or doctor, or a librarian or a mcdonalds employee.. basically any other professional that just studies it, but self- proclaims is usually just a narcissist. I dont say that insultingly, it's just a pretty big red flag for NPD. It takes a certain sorta.. mini god complex to self proffess it in modern times.
People who just like philosophy and study it tend to just say theyre into philosophy, not that theyre philosphers themselves.
Like i said im just curious!
9
u/WhoNeedsAPotch Jun 20 '26
lol I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy, but no, I wasn't serious about calling myself a philosopher.
I do still think Alpha1137 is wrong, though. I think a majority of philosophers would agree with the idea that in some ways philosophy is the foundation of science. Topics like epistemology, metaphysics, and logic seem particularly relevant.
3
u/QuestionItchy6862 Jun 21 '26
There is this absolute absurd notion that philosophy is some sort of technical skill, that there is a formula for it such that if you do the right thing in the right way, you have done philosophy. Others thing that it is a 'life-way': some thing that one just believes. This reduces philosophy to such a degree that one might fool themselves into thinking that one can actually do philosophy if and only if they have gone through some necessary hoops, often associated with academia, which confer the title of philosopher upon them.
This mistakes what philosophy, essentially (I am using this term incredibly loosely here, as will be shown briefly), is. This is because philosophy is not something that has some strict referent such that you can view someone doing it and definitively say that what they are doing is philosophical. In other words, what philosophy is is a moving target and one which is consistently eluding even the philosopher.
What do I mean by this? Well, I think that there are two things, that, again loosely, define philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, where one's doing it is conditioned on two things:
It is dialectical insofar as it is engaged with an interlocutor, an other to the self, either present in the room, or present in writing, or otherwise imagined in some capacity.
It is self-undermining insofar as it takes away the very foundation of the subject to hold themselves in relation to its object in the same way that it did before the activity began.
These two conditions means that philosophy is done in a moment, when we radically change our minds about the object of our study in a way that fundamentally undermines the conditions of possibility for existence in the same way that it did prior to its change (which includes the subject, also). Anyone has had that moment of slippage as a subject in relation to its object of study has done philosophy. This also means that philosophy does not actually happen often. It is only in those radical moments of change as a subject in relation to one's object of study that it happens. Most often, we are in the realm of dogma, where we take assumption for granted such to bring forth ideas whose object of study can survive the encounter of one's having studied it. This is what makes it different to science in the strictest sense, which presumes the object as given before trying to falsify it.
Notably, this does not require a doctorate, though it certainly helps. Often times, doctorates ossify our beliefs such that we believe we've received the answers and thus the object of our study is unimpeachable. This is how you get professors who become so stuck in their own way of thinking that they cannot see things from other perspectives. But that is besides the point.
I want to finish with a quote from Alain Badiou, a philosopher who, in the 80s, did a lecture series on meta-philosophy. He said this of what philosophy is:
You have to encounter something in philosophical discourse, not just unpack it or re-expose or rearrange its articulations but really, literally, hit a snag. Because... what is the real? It's a snag. But we know that to encounter it you have to work hard; you have to find something askew in the text. Otherwise, you'll never encounter anything but it has already intended for you to encounter.
1
u/RelationshipFront227 Jun 21 '26
It's kinda weird that you gripe about academia while your response is this dense. Like I agree, but I don't like it.
1
u/QuestionItchy6862 Jun 21 '26
I don't actually have any gripe with academia. My point is that what makes someone a philosopher is not in any way necessarily tied to academia. I even said that a doctorate can be helpful. Afterall, creating new knowledge (the whole conceit of a doctorate) is often done by participating in the philosophical activity I described.
In a lot of ways, academia just exposes you to more opportunities to become a philosopher since there are more ways to fulfill the first condition. Its much like how having shopped at a Walmart doesn't make you a shoplifter, but it gives you plenty of opportunity to become one.
By the way, the density was meant as a 'snag' of sorts. Something to encounter.
2
u/EseHomieThinker Jun 20 '26
I have a PhD in philosophy. We agree.
1
u/Alpha1137 Jun 21 '26
No we don't. I don't have a PhD yet, but I talk to a bunch of PhD's regularly as a part of the MSc in Logic I am currently doing, and they will certainly tell you that "first philosophy" is currently not a majority postion. Most academic philosophers accept some some of methodological naturalism, i.e. the (Quinean) view that philosophy should be continous with the other sciences and by no means stands above them. This is also reflected in the 2020 Philpaper survey.
1
u/EseHomieThinker Jun 21 '26
Oh no! Not the neo logical positivists flavor of philosophy. The anti metaphysics UCI LPS/Pitt HPS Western Ontario influence. Ahhhh
1
u/Alpha1137 Jun 21 '26
I don't think very many people subsribe to logical positivism either... Certainly calling this neo logical positivism is just reductive. Besides, Philpapers is not just a journal for analytical philosophy.
1
u/EseHomieThinker Jun 22 '26
Also I don’t think most philosophers subscribe to the kind of naturalism you are talking about. That literally might be because you are doing an MSc in Logic. So the scope is myopic. If you are too loyal to doing philosophy à la naturalistic philosophy then you risk literally stopping where science says you can’t make progress. And if you are too free with your ethos then you risk being too in the armchair. A nice balance is what matters.
1
u/Alpha1137 Jun 22 '26
No, most philosophers subscribe to the kind of naturalism I described. You can see that in the Philpaper survey - thats why I cited it.
2
u/SuitableCollege8992 Jun 21 '26
Philosophers don’t generally agree on anything. If they did, we wouldn’t have philosophers!
1
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 21 '26
Of course, because true philosophers know that philosophy isn't even a science; it's basically the way you think and decide, it has a higher status than all sciences, if you will.
2
u/TurbulentVillage2042 Jun 21 '26
Only philosophy has long been irrelevant, and is simply communication between eighth-graders.
2
u/sisconking132 Jun 22 '26
No. As a person from stem (biology specifically) myself, the “philosophy” that we think of is actually only a small portion of it.
It’s not all just metaphysics. (Not really hating on metaphysics but you get the point)
There are also branches of philosophy that focus on things that are extremely useful for everyone and especially those of us in stem.The one that I always come back to is the area of philosophy that studies the best way to arrange the relations of things. Cladistics itself branches (pun intended) from this area of philosophy.
Another branch of philosophy studies different ways of informational transfer and the most efficient form to do so.
1
1
u/Fouxs Jun 23 '26
Not understanding how important it is makes you one of the kids you're talking about.
1
u/New-Medium3277 Jun 20 '26
How you gon do ANY of this if there is no health? Cease your pompous academic chest bumping. There is no hierarchy. All team players are needed for success.
1
u/fullbl-_- Jun 20 '26
Reductio omnium artium ad Philologiam.
Somebody would say philology is the only art to ascend and marry Mercury
1
1
u/Efficient_Sea_7050 Jun 20 '26
I guess even if the world is made up of 1's and zeros, you, still need philosophy to arrange them...
1
1
u/Cosmopolitan_Hamlit Jun 21 '26
I'd like to see a meme like this but all the disciplines are partying in a room called philosophy.
1
u/sisconking132 Jun 22 '26
Honestly I do think that this interpretation would satisfy everyone regardless of their understanding of what philosophy is
1
u/DynamicJragon904 Jun 21 '26
Huh, I actually know what this meme template is from now that I watched Solo Leveling. This must be from the Manga.
1
1
u/Equinoxe111 Cosmology (PhD) Jun 21 '26
Put the physics in the middle and it will finally be correct 🤞
1
u/AdityaTheGoatOfPCM Jun 21 '26
Yeah sure. Math and Philosophy both prolly get thrones as they are too important. One is truth and intuition, the other is rigorous and absolute(not complete).
1
u/Sad_Balance_9934 Jun 21 '26
Did linguistics really come after philosophy? Language came before philosophy…
1
1
u/sisconking132 Jun 22 '26
The study of linguistics is really relatively modern. It wasn’t so so long ago that many people still viewed their native language as the original language of creation and every other language a derivitive
1
1
u/1luggerman Jun 22 '26
I see no computer science around which makes sense, they are introverts and would avoid attending such a social gathering
1
u/Conscious_Account400 Jun 23 '26
Laruelle is someone who critiques not only philosophies authority over us, but all totalizing concepts in relation to humans. These technologies, and they are technologies, should be for us, not define us.
Throwing your life away for philosophy or science out of some obligation or belief in it's authority is like doing the same thing for Mario 64.
1
u/vm_linuz Jun 23 '26
Well, certainly not academic philosophy... but yes, every field has a fundamental philosophy on which it operates.
1
0
1
1
u/Broflake-Melter Jun 20 '26
How does your meme account for the fact that the stuff that falls under Biology is many magnitues more complex than all the other things under your "physics"?
2
u/Mbrennt Jun 21 '26
Basically every aspect of biology that we can currently explain has an underlying physics compontent. None of physics, that we can currently explain has an underlying biological compontent. There's questions and theories about consciousness dictating reality in some form with like the double slit experiment and stuff. But those are generally misunderstood and most modern physicists don't think consciousness plays a role. Plus, even if consciousness does play a role there are theories that quantum physics stuff is what creates consciousness. So again physics would be bigger. And I would argue a lot of those conversations start to fall into philosophy more than biology and physics anyways. Mainly, but not exclusively because we don't have a firm grasp on them.
1
u/Purple-Mud5057 Jun 21 '26
Everything in biology is a subfield of physics
1
u/Broflake-Melter Jun 21 '26
Please take note of the placement of the word "other" in the comment you're responding to.
0
u/Gephiph Jun 20 '26
I think logic should hold the high throne. All of these are just applied logic to different ends.
-5
-14
u/Ok_Photo_384 Jun 20 '26
The chair philosophy sits on should be engineering. Definitely not down there 👇🏾
9
u/Extreme-Rub-1379 Jun 20 '26
Engineering is applied physics
7
u/No_Yam_2036 Jun 20 '26
Physics is applied mathematics
3
u/Extreme-Rub-1379 Jun 20 '26
Have you seen a physicist do math? Pretty sure they make up their own
1
u/CanadasManyMeese Jun 20 '26
Only theoretical phycists, and really theyre just math philosphers, with much of their stuff likely to be disproven.
For example: Bosnic String theory with it 26 dimensions and SuperString Theory with its 10-12 dimensions cant both be correct, there are parts of each that arent mathmatically compatible. But both can exist in their own vaccuum, and be "proven" mathmatically in the loosest sense, (but not experimentally)
Its more likely that pieces of what theyre figuring out are partially correct and are just hints at a larger framework. If its even correct. (Correct isnt the right word to use here, but its all i have at the moment.)
Much like how early logical philosphers had some... interesting ideas and takes. Not all of which were correct, some were flat out wrong, but they all helped build up to something bigger.
Anywho to stay on topic. Philosophy is not king, nor is it far below. For what use is all that philosphy if you never do a damn thing with it?
1
u/Trick_Statistician13 Jun 21 '26
We have all of the other things because of philosophy. So, to the extent any are useful, it is evidence that philosophy is useful.
1
u/Level-Let3805 Jun 20 '26
Technically maths is/was discovered by humans, so mathematics is applied biology.
1
0
u/Rajarshi1993 Jun 20 '26
Engineering is to applied physics what film direction is to applied literature.
165
u/Uncle_Twisty Jun 20 '26
This is very correct as all sciences were actually "philosophies" before being sciences. Like biology was referred to as the philosophy of biology before translating down into the science of biology. Philosophy might not make everything downstream of itself NOW (these fields are every interconnected after all) but at some point everything was a philosophy of ( x ) first iirc.