Interesting that he brings up the story of Er. Plato made all the arguments when it comes to philosophy’s why and how. The story of Er is the comprehension test at the end of the book. Sadly, Tim did not pass the Er’s test.
Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
131–140 of 338 posts
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compatibilists are inconsistent determinists. They claim we're "free" when we're doing what we want; not being forced by external circumstances to do something we don't want. Basically the idea of being free if you're a puppet and love your strings. I find the idea ignores how everything is one entity and what encompasses the puppet, "being the stage & props" must also be loved by the puppet for one to be free. So th…
Are you suggesting that you're constantly doing things you don't want all the time? And that you have no power to change this?
I think he's suggesting tossing out personal feelings or values ("the strings") as having no actual normative worth, which leaves me wondering what he thinks would be worth having free will over.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not the scientific method at all. The point of science is to make a plausible conjecture and try to prove it false. When you honestly can't falsify your conjecture, then you put some faith in it as a good explanation. This is a logically sound way to try and understand the universe, but you never prove or verify anything - you just get plausible beliefs. Math has proofs, and trusting someone else is politics.
> The point of science is to make a plausible conjecture and try to prove it false. FWIW, and I'm not an expert, but I'd say that the Popperian view you summarise reflects philosophy of science circa 1960's, and things have moved on since then.
I don't want to sound too snarky, but "moved on" sounds like we're talking about fashion... Has modus tollens moved on too? I haven't studied modern philosophy (or Popper), but if there is a concise explanation I'd like to hear it.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#134Interesting interview. "Already in Republic (Plato again!) we have an argument—a clear and compelling rational argument—that even the highest political office should be open to women.' What is not specified here is the sense of 'rationality' that is required of moral realism. It is not enough that something be coherently deduced from stated premises, because we can state different premises, use different categories,…
I think an interesting follow-on question to his answer would have been "... and using similar reasoning what big things does society get wrong? What freedoms/rights are suppressed inappropriately?"
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#135I can see why this guy is popular. I wonder whether he'd be so quick to dismiss Gödel and Quine if presented with an utterance like, "This sentence is true, but cannot be proven true by any human nor any human-crafted device." I'm quite confident that this sentence is true, but cannot put forth a proof which would convince anybody; at the same time, just like any other mathematical object, its proof is generated by t…
It sounded like he agrees he just doesn't think it is that interesting or meaningful.
He's probably primed by the frequent misappropriation of Gödel to support radical skepticism in pop sci contexts, something I'm not sure Gödel or Quine would have thought very highly of either.
(I've seen videos of Quine railing against skeptics... I do not think he had much patience for it.)
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#136Surprisingly, Ycombinator co-founder Paul Graham was a philosophy major for most of his college years. He has a lot to say about it in one of his essays: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
He seems to have kept writing philosophy, his essays are in line with his proposal for philosophy :
> The test of utility I propose is whether we cause people who read what we've written to do anything differently afterward.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unprovable that science is the best method to arrive at truth about the universe. Remember that science attempts to come up with the best explanation for the evidence we have, often using experimentation to resolve questions. The answers are always tentative—ready to be thrown out if better ones come along. Faith in science is not an unreasonable assumption—says me who holds that assumption—but it's faith noneth…
>Faith in science is not an unreasonable assumption—says me who holds that assumption—but it's faith nonetheless. Faith is when one acts on a belief without having any rational reason for it. My rational reason for believing in science is simply: it works!
I suppose that's one definition of faith, but it's not the definition I would use to describe my faith.
My great grandmother's nickname was, apparently, Jennie. No official records note this fact. But it's something told to me by my mother, who knew her. And because of everything I know about my mother, I have faith that she is telling me the truth. Without any evidence except my mother's word, I can't prove it, but I don't think it's irrational for me to believe it.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put it shortly but slightly inaccurately, compatibilism basically comes from the idea that "free will" is implied by "moral responsibility", and then it is noted that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible. For more detail, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil .
> To put it shortly but slightly inaccurately, compatibilism basically comes from the idea that "free will" is implied by "moral responsibility", and then it is noted that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible. It's actually the other way around: if you acted according to your own free will, then you are morally responsible for your choice.
No, read the link I gave. (Note also that I'm explaining the dominant arguments, not endorsing them.)
If it's still not clear why I put the implication that way around, note that not everyone thinks that you have a moral responsibility in the way Peter Singer argues, but basically every philosopher thinks it's wrong to kick a dog.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#139I can see why this guy is popular. I wonder whether he'd be so quick to dismiss Gödel and Quine if presented with an utterance like, "This sentence is true, but cannot be proven true by any human nor any human-crafted device." I'm quite confident that this sentence is true, but cannot put forth a proof which would convince anybody; at the same time, just like any other mathematical object, its proof is generated by t…
I have very little experience with philosophy, but the stated sentence does not seem to be true or false, it just... exists.
Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no single universally agreed definition of the term "free will". So, it is possible to define "free will" in such a way that it is compatible with determinism (e.g., "my will is free if its decisions are the product of my ordinary processes of thinking–even if those ordinary processes are determined by natural laws–as opposed to the product of any extraordinary external interference such as drugs, brainwashi…
I think you pretty fairly describe the current landscape of this debate, which is unusual in itself. Kudos! > Part of the dispute is over whether such a definition of "free will" matches people's everyday pre-philosophical usage, and also whether it works for the purposes of other disciplines in which the concept of "free will" might be invoked, such as ethics or law. Fortunately, this is an empirical question that h…
Lay people, yes, but lay people also believe in ghosts and angels. Lay people believing it doesn't make it true. Scientific reasoning shows compatibilism is inaccurate, But just how like how belief in an scientifically absurd afterife can make people happy, being scientifically correct is not equivalent to having a good life. And this is a potential definition of the essence religion or wait, properly opposed to science: faith can make you happy even when you are wrong, and losing that faith makes you unhappy. Therefore, having faith is the correct choice for an ideal human life. It's right to be wrong.