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

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#61

Post by empath75 »

PeterisP wrote: post #58
Buldak wrote: post #9

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. Does that distinguish philosophy from the sciences or other areas of academia?

Other areas of sciences tend to have some "customer" outside themselves, where the sciences are applied. This also tends to be emphasized in the criteria for grant proposals in many domains nowadays. IMHO the appropriate position of philosophy in modern academia would be as "metascience", i.e., their writings should be clearly useful to scientists across other sciences, they should be informative and relevant for peo…

> IMHO the appropriate position of philosophy in modern academia would be as "metascience"

I don't think we should draw too many boundaries over what's 'appropriate' philosophy -- there's a lot of stuff to think about and a lot of people around to think it. I just hope that people don't think that obscure philosophy from academic journals is the only 'real' philosophy.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#62

Post by mattmanser »

igravious wrote: post #56
mattmanser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. Philosophy is a massive con, basically armchair thinkers who offer no practical, testable, recreatable, advice. And I did an actual Philosophy degree! The only bastion of Philos…

> So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. blatant non-sequitur > Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. a recent study shows that “Physics, Mathematical Sciences and Philosophy are among the majors with the highest IQs in America, according to research.” h…

> blatant non-sequitur

1. Grandparent claims there's something meaningful behind the name of a degree being prefixed with "Doctor of Philosophy in...".

2. I draw parallels between a "Knight of the realm" bearing no relevance to the martial prowess of the recipients today.

It's just a name, a tradition, it's meaningless.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#63

Post by lotsofpulp »

grive wrote: post #60
lotsofpulp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applied chemistry is biology, applied physics is chemistry, and applied math is physics. Applied philosophy is not math. Another way to look at it is asking why in biology leads you to chemistry, asking why in chemistry leads you to physics, and asking why in physics leads you to math. Asking why in math does not lead you to philosophy.

Thinking about logic is a discipline of philosophy. Applied logic is math.

I'm referring to philosophy as the study of matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Applied logic feels like discrete math to me.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#64

Post by _h_o_d_ »

davidhakendel wrote: post #10

The cresting of a wave is but its fall; the flash of a bolt of lightning is but its fading. Likewise, knowledge, drinking up the water of ignorance, grows so large that it completely annihilates itself. This absolute knowledge is like the intrinsic fullness of the moon, which is unaffected by its apparent waxing and waning. ~Jnaneshwar Knowledge that is acquired is not like this. Those who have it worry if audiences…

Robert Pirsig differentiated philosophy in a similar way: between Philosophy, the knowledge of the world; and Philosophology, the kind of organising things they do in Anglo-American Philosophy departments, in his classic Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#65

Post by BrandoElFollito »

folksinger wrote: post #29

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 al…

This is exactly the kind of comment which confirms my opinion about how useless philosophy is.

I am honestly wondering if you are trolling or actually trying to make a point.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#66

Post by folksinger »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #65
folksinger wrote: post #29

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 al…

This is exactly the kind of comment which confirms my opinion about how useless philosophy is. I am honestly wondering if you are trolling or actually trying to make a point.

This is exactly the kind of comment that confirms my hypothesis of the anti-philosophical spectrum.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#67

Post by rotrux »

lancebeet wrote: post #55
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

There's a clear distinction. Mathematics is axiomatic, anything that is proven in mathematics is also true in physics, provided it's in the correct context. This can be extended to the other sciences as well, anything that is true in a model of physics is also true in chemistry or biology as well, again, provided the right context. This doesn't hold true for philosophy, since philosophy has no requirement of logical…

I'd argue the distinction is not as clear as you think. You use the words proven & true as if the word we use to describe gravity isn't "theory."

Considering Philosophy to be a superset, inclusive of mathematics but not exclusive to it, means portions of philosophy such as logic & applied ontology (aka statistics) fit within your axiomatic definition.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#68

Post by cgmg »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #65
folksinger wrote: post #29

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 al…

This is exactly the kind of comment which confirms my opinion about how useless philosophy is. I am honestly wondering if you are trolling or actually trying to make a point.

Why do you think philosophy is useless?

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#70

Post by charlysl »

meri_dian wrote: post #44

Philosophy used to be the general designation assigned to anyone who thought alot. This was before science and the delineation of disciplines of thought. Physicists used to be known as natural philosophers. As the conceptual tools and frameworks they used became so refined and distant from the sort of thinking people normally do that the intelligent layman couldn't contribute, it became clear the activity of the natu…

I like Russell's definition (and his beautiful prose):

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy

Post reply on HN