Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

news.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 293 posts

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to start with the Socratic dialogues. 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. They would be much better off getting a lay of the land from a modern writer. In fact, just as you don't read original research papers to l…

> 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…

> 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).

This is sometimes true, but I think it depends on who you're reading. The skill of philosophizing, and of carrying on a discourse with other philosophers, is very different from the skill of bringing a novice up to speed. Not everyone who's great at one is great at the other. There's also value in what the grandparent post mentioned about establishing historical and biographical context before jumping into primary sources. It helps you understand what you're reading and what the community thinks is important about it.

That said, I definitely agree that primary sources are valuable to read, and to appreciate as works of art in their own right. Yes Wikipedia can give you the big ideas, but it's just not the same. But hitting Wikipedia first can give you context to get more out of the primary.

> The concept of "state of the art" exists for engineering not art

I don't understand this. Yes philosophy is not a linear progression of ideas, but the iterative process of people building on one another's ideas is definitely present, as it is in music or mathematics or poetry. Philosophy responds to current events, to art, to science, and to itself.

To put it another way, it's totally valid to ask "what was up with philosophy in X decade". You can look at the ideas that were floating around, how they interacted with each other, how they built on the past and led to future ideas. As I see it, that's the "state of the art". It's more a question of "what were top minds in the field working on", or maybe "what ideas were most influential", than anything else, but that's true if you ask that question of technology too.

> Smartphones or cars change messaging methods and habbits, not philosophy.

Philosophy (or philosophers) respond to what's around them. The conversation around whether the brain is a computer, for example, is very different today (and probably more interesting to most people) than it would have been 200 years ago.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Philosophy today, almost by definition, is the study of problems that have resisted all attempts at systematic understanding for two thousand years. It has no wisdom for us. If you want wisdom, look to math and science." What do math and science study? What is the proper subject of chemistry or physics? That question such questions are not something math or science can answer. When you've got some knowledge (say fro…

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy. GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engage…

"those questions have proven intractable to philosophy"

There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable.

What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate.

"it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers"

If you agree with someone about the ground rules and assumptions, then you can judge and by some such standards there have been "objectively" provable answers and "progress".

But is philosophy's function to find answers?

Many would say that it's actually more about helping you to find questions.

I've heard that in science finding the right questions is often the harder and more important thing than finding the answers, which are often a pretty straightforward process after you know the questions to ask.

If philosophy can help to ask the right questions, then it can be useful even if it doesn't help you find answers that will convince everyone no matter what assumptions they have or are willing to grant.

People involved in the sciences (and believers in scientific ideals) often pride themselves as being open to questioning everything, and greatly value such openness.

First, this itself is a philosophical position, so if such a position is useful to science then philosophy is useful to science.

Second, while such openness is often claimed as an ideal, in practice it's common for people involved in the sciences (and their fans) not to be so open after all. Philosophical training can help them to be more questioning and see their own assumptions where they might be blind to them otherwise. So this too makes philosophy useful to science (or at least the ideals of science that so many aspire to).

Next, philosophy, like math, is useful for training the mind. You can become a more rigorous thinker by studying philosophy -- this I believe is one reason that people with a philosophy degree are the ones most commonly admitted to law school.

Philosophy could also expand your mind or your horizons, and let you see things from another perspective that you otherwise might have been blind to. That's been one of its most valuable uses for me.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#224
Rather than list all the classics like Plato, Aristotle, Hume, etc., I always suggest that those new to philosophy pick a book that will “shock” them, so to speak. Something that makes the reader go, “Wow, I had never considered the world from that perspective before.”

For this purpose, I recommend some of the following:

- Max Stirner. Sort of a proto-anarchist that critiqued everything and denied the authority of everyone.

- Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morality. The concepts in this book will radically shake up your understanding of modern ethics and values.

- A work about Zen Buddhism. Zen in particular is very focused on the everyday moment, in a way distinctly opposite from the common YOLO / carpe diem idea we’re all familiar with.

- Spinoza. HN’s especially will appreciate the complex, mathematical nature of his metaphysics.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to start with the Socratic dialogues. 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. They would be much better off getting a lay of the land from a modern writer. In fact, just as you don't read original research papers to l…

"Philosophy today, almost by definition, is the study of problems that have resisted all attempts at systematic understanding for two thousand years. It has no wisdom for us. If you want wisdom, look to math and science." What do math and science study? What is the proper subject of chemistry or physics? That question such questions are not something math or science can answer. When you've got some knowledge (say fro…

> I would argue that the most important questions for most people are not scientific or mathematical questions, but philosophical ones -- such as:

> - "what should I do with my life?"

> - "what is the purpose of my life or of the world?"

> - "should I help someone in need or help myself?"

> - "what subject (including mathematical or scientific subject) should I study or work on?"

> - "who should live or die, be punished or rewarded?"

> - "how should we structure our society?"

> - "how should we as a society or as individuals spend our money?"

And yet philosophy offers no practical help to the student seeking answers to these questions today. Sure, a philosopher will happily produce a mountain of pages addressing any one of these questions, but you will be no wiser for having read them.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. And yet philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do. People often come to philosophy with the hope that studying philosophy will help them liv…

"philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do"

Take a look at the enormous popularity of Stoicism on HN. I think quite a few people here would disagree with you about philosophy being "utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do".

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy. GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engage…

"those questions have proven intractable to philosophy" There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable. What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what st…

> But is philosophy's function to find answers?

You're moving the goal posts. Why did you just say that philosophy can help us address a long list of questions if you're willing to concede that maybe philosophy isn't for answering questions at all.

OP wants answers. They want to develop a personal philosophy. They are not looking to "expand their horizons" or "question everything."

> there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate.

Then it's not going to be very useful to OP, is it? It's like using a random number generator to predict the Powerball. "One of these numbers will win. Can't say which, though."

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#228

As a philosophy major, I would advise you to pay attention to the order in which you expose yourself to materials. The earlier stronger impressions in your journey will naturally have a weight on your opinions of later materials. In addition, academic departments usually have an -ism bias so that will also influence their content recommendations. A neutral starter would be: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking…

"A neutral starter would be: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Once you have some formal thinking tools, I would approach philosophy building organically by writing down your beliefs and identifying questions and gaps, and then researching those ad-hoc" There are probably many HN readers who would find this a congenial approach, since there are so many programmers here, and logic is so close to math and pr…

You raise good points.

I would agree that Plato/Aristotle are good foundations for understanding European intellectual history but a lot of chronological study is required to see their influence / relevance today. Here's a cool dependency graph that shows the centrality of Ancient thought: http://www.designandanalytics.com/philosophers-gephi/

However, I worry that a student without some grasp of valid inference would be at the mercy of aesthetic attraction/repulsion factors for deciding what to accept as valid.

I specifically recommended "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" because I found it to be the most practical and skill-based class in a Philosophy curriculum. While they usually cover some proofs, most of the content has to do with identifying arguments. In addition, having knowledge of formal/informal fallacies helps in everyday inference. It is also relatively free of heavy "Greco-roman" western bias, which may appeal to a wider audience.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#229

The best way to learn about philosophy is to take a good introductory course. Books aren't nearly as good because you won't get to discuss the ideas with other students who are also learning the subject, which is half the fun and half the point of philosophy. You'll also miss out on the insights and explanations of the professor, which will be very valuable, if the professor is any good. As for books, the Socratic di…

To give a more direct answer, the Harvard Justice course which is famous and you can watch it all here: http://justiceharvard.org/

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And yet philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do. People often come to philosophy with the hope that studying philosophy will help them liv…

"philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do" Take a look at the enormous popularity of Stoicism on HN. I think quite a few people here would disagree with you about philosophy being "utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do".

And yet most philosophers aren't Stoics. Physics will tell you how fast an object will fall. You can ask a dozen physicists and they will all give you the same answer. Philosophy only tells you how to live if you ask exactly one philosopher. Ask a second, and you will be no better off than when you started.
Post reply on HN