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

Philosophy Needs a New Definition

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#21

Post by dvt »

evanwise wrote: post #11
jdtang13 wrote: post #8

From the headline, I thought that the article would be some materialist Sam Harris fanboy talking about how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and how science can tell us objective truths about morality. Count me surprised! This writer has great taste. Philosophy and poetry are closely related. Transmission of knowledge is very difficult. People don't learn well through textbooks and diagrams; they learn…

For most people, yes, I'd agree. For me personally, not really. I grasp abstractions and formal stuff almost instantly, but it takes a lot of grappling with the text for me to come to terms with continental philosophy. Like, I had zero trouble with Kant's Critique, but I had to read Discipline and Punish 3 times before I felt like I "got it". NOTE: This doesn't mean I disparage continental philosophy, just noting tha…

> This doesn't mean I disparage continental philosophy, just noting that the discursive/narrative mode is not intuitive for everyone.

My problem with continental philosophy isn't the intuition (or lack thereof), but rather its lack of precision.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#22

Post by marcosdumay »

Buldak wrote: post #9
empath75 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentives in academic philosophy aren't really around finding truth, but rather getting published so you can keep your tenure. There are a lot of academic philosophers that have crawled so far up their own asses they don't even know the way out any more. But they don't represent all of philosophy, even if they get a lot of attention. Philosophy broadly defined is as vital and important as ever, though. I can't i…

>The incentives in academic philosophy aren't really around finding truth, but rather getting published so you can keep your tenure. Does that distinguish philosophy from the sciences or other areas of academia?

Other areas of academia have to face the real world or some kind of formalism sooner or later. That keeps them grounded to some (varying) level.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#23

Post by danharaj »

jdtang13 wrote: post #8

From the headline, I thought that the article would be some materialist Sam Harris fanboy talking about how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and how science can tell us objective truths about morality. Count me surprised! This writer has great taste. Philosophy and poetry are closely related. Transmission of knowledge is very difficult. People don't learn well through textbooks and diagrams; they learn…

> how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy

Which is especially damning when analytic philosophy seems to be stuck in an ossified understanding of logic and the kind of rigorous arguments used in mathematics.

A response to analytic philosophy from mathematics can be found in Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics [1]. I enjoyed the book quite a bit but I do have a math background so I don't know how accessible it is for a layperson or even a professional philosopher that isn't familiar with contemporary math. The philosophical arguments weren't hard to follow for me though and I'm by no means steeped in philosophy.

A response to analytic philosophy from contemporary logic can be found in the work of Jean-Yves Girard. In particular, the opposition of syntax/semantics is criticized. Girard prefers to treat proofs as mathematical objects in of themselves, i.e. realizability. See The Blind Spot [2] and if you read French, [3] is a non-technical explanation of his post-classical logical ideas.

[1] https://www.urbanomic.com/book/synthetic-philosophy-of-conte...

[2] https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-blind-spot-lecture...

[3] http://www.editions-allia.com/fr/livre/749/le-fantome-de-la-...

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#24

Post by fao_ »

slazaro wrote: post #19
evanwise wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, yes, I'd agree. For me personally, not really. I grasp abstractions and formal stuff almost instantly, but it takes a lot of grappling with the text for me to come to terms with continental philosophy. Like, I had zero trouble with Kant's Critique, but I had to read Discipline and Punish 3 times before I felt like I "got it". NOTE: This doesn't mean I disparage continental philosophy, just noting tha…

I've noticed I have a similar problem myself. What other authors have you found interesting and accessible?

Not OP, but I find Hofstadter's later works are very accessible. Likewise I find much of Bertrand Russell's writing very easy to read, while not lacking in precision in the least.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#25

Post by rotrux »

People tend to forget that PhD (when translated into english) means "Doctor of Philosophy in..."

While getting my bachelor's in math, I often heard peers explain the following: Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology ...with the intended implication that all science rests on math.

Here's the diagram I'd come back with. It wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm: Philosophy ==> Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#26

Post by vinceguidry »

A good, if depressing, argument can be made for defining philosophy as "that which happens in academic philosophy departments." Ideas have a quorum of people that you have to convince in order to be taken seriously, when your thoughts aspire to the philosophical, then that quorum exists solely in the academy and related organizations grounded in the academy.

Any attempts to get outside of this mean expanding the quorum to "anyone, really." Which means the standard publishing cycle where your idea's merits are judged by sales figures. Which means that every single book out there is a philosophy treatise.

Any marketplace of ideas has to have its gatekeepers. Otherwise we all drown in a deluge of shit. Traditional literature, art, architecture, really any serious creative endeavor has an industry of people that serves as the gatekeepers that determine both the current status and the zeitgeist of the art. Outsiders must build their own audiences and fight their way in, rather than be able to tap the extant audience that the gatekeepers are the guardians of. It's difficult to see how it could happen any other way. Otherwise you get legions of wannabes proffering crap. Philosophy is no different.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#27

Post by [deleted] »

rotrux wrote: post #25

People tend to forget that PhD (when translated into english) means "Doctor of Philosophy in..." While getting my bachelor's in math, I often heard peers explain the following: Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology ...with the intended implication that all science rests on math. Here's the diagram I'd come back with. It wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm: Philosophy ==> Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology

[deleted]

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#28

Post by gumby »

rotrux wrote: post #25

People tend to forget that PhD (when translated into english) means "Doctor of Philosophy in..." While getting my bachelor's in math, I often heard peers explain the following: Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology ...with the intended implication that all science rests on math. Here's the diagram I'd come back with. It wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm: Philosophy ==> Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology

That is in fact why mathematics is referred to as the "queen of the sciences" -- philosophy is king.

And PhD is literally "teacher of the appreciation of knowledge" -- until recently you had "the PhD" and were qualified to teach, theoretically, any subject.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#29

Post by folksinger »

Think of a triangle. At one point is "philosopher", at another "asshole", and the third "idiot".

Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "idiot" to be "innocent love". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "asshole" to be "pure knowledge".

The total idiot has all the love and none of the knowledge. The total asshole has all of the knowledge and none of the love. The total philosopher has all the love and all of the knowledge.

Anti-philosophers fall somewhere along the "asshole-idiot" spectrum. Stock brokers, tech bloggers, newscasters, Hollywood actors. You get the drift.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#30

Post by evanwise »

slazaro wrote: post #19
evanwise wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, yes, I'd agree. For me personally, not really. I grasp abstractions and formal stuff almost instantly, but it takes a lot of grappling with the text for me to come to terms with continental philosophy. Like, I had zero trouble with Kant's Critique, but I had to read Discipline and Punish 3 times before I felt like I "got it". NOTE: This doesn't mean I disparage continental philosophy, just noting tha…

I've noticed I have a similar problem myself. What other authors have you found interesting and accessible?

If you are interested at all in continental philosophy, I'd say Lyotard is a really good place to start for folks coming from an analytic philosophy or hard science background. He engages with some of the same ideas as the rest of the continental milieu but his writing style is not nearly as dense and allusive as the rest. For more contemporary stuff, Badiou is really interesting. He's, among other things, trying to bridge the gap between analytic and continental philosophy. If you want to dive deeper, I'd try to understand the historical development of contemporary continental philosophy from Kant through German idealism via Hegel. A lot of the stuff that is confusing in continental philosophy is confusing because we tend to teach it without regards to its historical development (I know my continental philosophy class was like this at least).
Post reply on HN