Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philosophy Beyond the Academy

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#11

Post by goatlover »

M_Grey wrote: post #10
goatlover wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today. And there are plenty of philosophers who have taken findings from science and asked what the implications are. Why do we experience a flow of time, if physics is t…

To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.

Depends on whether you think science can answer all the metaphysical questions. Is there a real world, independent of our minds? If so, what is it made of, independent of our models? Can we know? Scientists themselves have stated their own positions on these kinds of questions from anti-realist to idealist to instrumentalist, to various varieties of realism, to math as what's fundamentally real, the universe is computing itself, we live inside a simulation, etc.

Ethics, politics, art, and values are judgements we make as humans. Science can inform our values, but it cannot tell us which values to adopt, or what system of government or economics we should want. You might think that equality and justice for all are the right sort of values, but other groups and societies have (and still do) thought otherwise. For some pleasure is the highest (and only true good). For others, it's a cause, it's family, it's power, it's money, etc.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#12

Post by Erik816 »

goatlover wrote: post #9
Erik816 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influe…

Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#13

Post by Erik816 »

M_Grey wrote: post #10
goatlover wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today. And there are plenty of philosophers who have taken findings from science and asked what the implications are. Why do we experience a flow of time, if physics is t…

To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.

Science is unlikely to fill in gaps of subjective experience and values, because it explicitly rules out subjective experience as part of its method. Which it should do. But then it can't very well claim that subjective experience has no value simply because it has no scientific value.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#14

Post by igravious »

Erik816 wrote: post #7
M_Grey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

No, this isn't true.

Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on.

The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately.

In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#15

Post by goatlover »

Erik816 wrote: post #13
M_Grey wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.

Science is unlikely to fill in gaps of subjective experience and values, because it explicitly rules out subjective experience as part of its method. Which it should do. But then it can't very well claim that subjective experience has no value simply because it has no scientific value.

Agreed, but some philosophers, notably of the analytic tradition who closely align their views with science, have tried to eliminate subjective experience so that science can explain everything about the mind.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#16

Post by Erik816 »

igravious wrote: post #14
Erik816 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately.…

This is probably too large of a topic to debate on a message board, but I would claim that the subject of "how ought we to live" is much larger than the small subset of issues discussed in academic philosophy under the rubric of "ethics." And while I agree that subjective/objective is a murky distinction, I still think it's useful.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#17

Post by igravious »

M_Grey wrote: post #5
igravious wrote: post #3

A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] Philosophical practice has certainly become bound up with academic philosophy. To such an extent that to be a "philosopher" one must become a lecturer in philosophy, preferably tenured because of the added cred. that brings. This is damaging to the grand project of philosophy because it creates an artificial divi…

The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…

You have both intuited where I was coming from and missed the point I was making.

Yes, the last 150 years could be characterised by the "rise of science" as you put it. But not only science, huge technological advances that have allowed us to manipulate those very things that were once abstract notions. Technology is what is important here, not science. The things that are drawn together under a scientific heading are those things that are amenable to the scientific method and our understanding of this method is grounded in the philosophy of science. It's a two way street. The more the we discover the more there is to know. For now there is plenty of space and technology advances dictate for now that the spaces are not shrinking but growing.

Regarding brain-drain, make of it what you will but studies have shown that in terms of IQ those who choose philosophy are comparable to their peers. So quality is not lacking, quantity-wise I could not say.

Where I think that philosophy has lost its way is in believing the very things you put forward, the sort of tired old false narratives that circulate in academia and in wider society.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#18

Post by ianai »

qwrusz wrote: post #6

I'm a big advocate for philosophy to be taught much more among core liberal arts subjects like literature and history. When the largest companies in the world have corporate mottos like "Don't be evil" and politics splits the country into parties incredulous how the other side can even think as they do, it's maybe time to teach a bit more philosophy in schools and a bit less Shakespeare (Will should stay, just make r…

I think philosophy is the whole academic tent and people are just egotistical about not being philosophy, needlessly. (only partial sarcasm)

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#19

Post by solipsism »

qwrusz wrote: post #6

I'm a big advocate for philosophy to be taught much more among core liberal arts subjects like literature and history. When the largest companies in the world have corporate mottos like "Don't be evil" and politics splits the country into parties incredulous how the other side can even think as they do, it's maybe time to teach a bit more philosophy in schools and a bit less Shakespeare (Will should stay, just make r…

Meh. Critical thinking skills, yes. The vast majority of the rest of philosophy, no. We don't want to reach peak Kierkegaard.

Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy

#20

Post by ryuker16 »

goatlover wrote: post #9
Erik816 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influe…

Depends on how tasty the animal is.

The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes.

Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park.

Source: my stomach

Post reply on HN