Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

For one sentence summaries of various philosophers’ main points (and how they relate to each other), see Deniz Cem Önduygu’s The History of Philosophy: Summarized and Visualized — https://www.denizcemonduygu.com/philo/

> This is an unhelpful nebulous statement, at its worst a circular definition and victim to the Münchhausen trilemma.

It is most certainly not circular. We are knowing agents first and know things spontaneously. Only on reflection do we begin to ask what knowledge is, what the limits of rational inquiry are, etc. But to be able to reflect on something, there must first be something to reflect on. Thus, we must know something before we can begin to consider epistemological questions or even have those questions in the first place. Methodic doubt always leads to incoherent conclusions because it is ultimately irrational.

> Not at all, I suggest to read Critique of Pure Reason.

I am not surprised by this recommendation given what you said. The Kantian position is extremely problematic and your appeal to it explains your reaction.

> I'll also note that epistemology was well established by Western philosophy long before Descartes.

This was never my claim. I only claimed that epistemology is not an ideal starting point. Obviously, epistemology predates Descartes. Modern philosophy onward (that is to say, beginning with Descartes, traditionally, anyway) shifts its concerns away from metaphysics to epistemology. Thus, epistemology supplants metaphysics as what one might call the primary concern of philosophical inquiry.

Wittgenstein is an important philosopher in the 20th century, not just for having answered questions, but because he also pointed out important questions,that we did not see. Seeing them now in this way is bringing us closer to answers needed now. He raised doubts about functionalism, the theory that is the basis of the computer revolution's theory of mind. So for example, he showed that just knowing the rules for computation was not enough to bring forth intelligence, much the less the wisdom that is the deeper need.His private language argument, that language is not private, speaks to the community needed to make computers work. One of the more important aspects in philosophy is Kant's post Church, post science goals, was for us to think for ourselves; we can't just pass the problem off to others. Much of this is happening now, even taken for granted, but Wittgenstein helped bring it about.

Karl Popper and David Deutsch, among others, took up the position that the key characteristic of rationality is the ability to criticize other positions. This goes beyond rejecting authority appeals, and instead emphasizes that all possible philosophical positions are fallible to some extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancritical_rationalism

A related concept is anti-foundationalism, which would purport that no system of knowledge can be based on infallible axioms. Their starting assumptions would always have to be defeasible, and thus can be criticized.

There are many forms of anti-foundationalism ranging from those stating that knowledge is a social construction based on changeable norms, to there being no such things as "givens".

And of course in continentalism Critical Theory literally takes being subversive as the role of its tradition.

>OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics.

I'd suggest the opposite, do start from the Socratic dialogues if you are really interested in philosophy.

On the other hand, if you want to be a tech guy with the common tech preconceptions about philosophy, feel free to skip Plato and his ilk.

And to answer my immediate parent, first, there's no "state of the art" in philosophy. Same way there's no "state of the art" in actual art (ancient art can be as good or better as modern art, and Bach e.g. can be as good or better than a modern composer, and in any case as relevant and enjoyable).

The concept of "state of the art" exists for engineering not art (and is within an engineering/tech context where the term first appeared in the 19th century, not in an art or philosophical context).

While technology can be accumulated, philosophy is a discourse and exchange of ideas. And, like in art, the formulation matters, and more often than not the best formulation is the original (because its closer to their source, the thinker who came up with those ideas). Plus, the main questions haven't changed the last 5000 years, to make answers outdated. Smartphones or cars change messaging methods and habbits, not philosophy.

>In my opinion, the reason for this is that philosophy as a means of understanding ourselves and our world beyond what science can tell us is essentially futile.

Restricting ourselves and our understanding to "what science can tell us" is absolutely futile, like trapped in a tautology (science is a closed system explaining what is, not what should be, as by itself it has no value, morals, aesthetics, and so on. You can be a scientist and a Nazi - and many were, without anything being problematic in that scientifically as long as you perform your experiments with the scientific method. The only objections to that would be moral and thus, the realm of philosophy).

Science is a tool, we don't ask tools for their opinions or for our goals or for what to do with them. We use them to make things or to examine things, no to think about what we want to make, or to think about what is best to make. That's for philosophy.