Stanford encyclopedia is a good reference:
https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
261–270 of 293 posts
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
"And yet most philosophers aren't Stoics"
You're moving the goal posts.
First you said:
"philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do"
I gave you an example how philosophy is in fact capable of doing that, and it does so for many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike).
Instead of granting the point, you move the goal posts.
Suddenly, philosophy being capable of telling us what to make or do is no longer good enough for you. Now you want answers to satisfy "most philosophers".
"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."
Philosophy is not physics. There is no consensus on many of the problems that concern it.
Philosophy, by the way, is far from the only academic discipline that lacks such a consensus.
Harry Truman said "If you laid every economist in the country end to end, they would all point in different directions."
There are also many disagreements on fundamental issues in psychology, and probably many if not most other "soft sciences".
But philosophy is not a science, so why are you holding it up to scientific standards?
Art and music aren't sciences either, but most people recognize they have tremendous value anyway.
By the way, I've noticed that you're laser-focused on this consensus issue, while completely being unable to acknowledge that philosophy has value apart from the issue of whether it gives you answers that everyone can agree on.
How about philosophy's value in training the mind?
Please answer if you find that valuable.
How about philosophy's value in letting people question their own assumptions?
Do you find that valuable?
Or philosophy's value in letting you see things from a different perspective?
Can you specifically address these points instead of endlessly returning to the one point of philosophy not having answers that everyone can agree on?
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#263Earlier 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 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 punis…
"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."
You might not be any wiser after having read them, but that doesn't mean no one is.
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#264I recommend "History of philosophy without gaps". It starts from "scratch" and also ventures out in Islam, India and Africana. So it's not entirely Western.
https://historyofphilosophy.net
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#265I recommend the Philosophise This podcast[0]. It has a lot of episodes on the classic philosophers but it also delves into some of the contemporary philosophers that I find very interesting. I lot of other philosophical discussions seem to act like philsophy stopped around Russell and Wittgenstein. [0] https://www.philosophizethis.org/
I love philosophize this. Stephen West, the host, has a really interesting story too. Man was just bagging groceries and sick of his life, and that's how he got into philosophy.
changed my life
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#266Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of philosophy is to teach you how to think so you can formulate your own answer. Apparently you expect everything to be 1+1=2, which really is kind of sad. You are a person who desperately needs philosophy, yet you seen incapable of understanding why you would need it. Science seems to have ruined you.
> Science seems to have ruined you. This is a very interesting thought. Is this something you came up with, or are you quoting any specific philosopher? I’d love to read more about this topic.
It's basically the idea of "scientism".
Scientistm being to science what nationalism is to patriotism.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/science-versus-scie...
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#268A long time ago someone recommended to me a small Norwegian book called Sophies World [0] as a very basic introduction to the history of philosophy and its served well. It was written by a teacher and geared at young adults. So its not a rigorous introduction. But its a short read and by the end you'll have enough leads to follow. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_World
Count another vote for Sophie's World as a breezy introduction. Call it the root node of your tree search.
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can only examine what knowledge is after we've come to know something This is an unhelpful nebulous statement, at its worst a circular definition and victim to the Münchhausen trilemma. > untenable because to know what can be known presumes knowing what is to be known first Not at all, I suggest to read Critique of Pure Reason. It is never about what is to be known, but really how one can know and in what way is…
> 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 s…
> 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.
Critique of Pure Reason is exactly about metaphysics albeit as a critique. Modern philosophy at least in the transcendental aesthetic doesn't supplant metaphysics.
> 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.
It’s trivial to criticize anything you’re not familiar with but that’s certainly not the way good philosophy is done.
Your hypothesis on knowing presumes that we have knowledge at all and that rationality leads to truth. Secondly, it’s nebulous because “to know” is, given the parsimony of the statement. Your argument only seems logical by the ambiguity of those concepts, “know” and “knowledge”.
Thirdly, these knowing agents are often victims to fallacies, delusions, and severe hallucinations—this strong naive realism has issues noted by even the early Greeks.
Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
#270It's best to start with epistemology, epistemology is the foundation for all works in philosophy, which an understanding of is necessary for not only a good rigor but to know what is possible to know, so you don't your waste time. Like others I recommend going through Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates--they are valuable in themselves but it will further allow you to see the motivation for the later works I'm going to re…
What about Singer's argument did you not find convincing?
Effectively I disagree with utilitarianism and instead believe that intents are what provides moral soundness—this is the counter-argument provided by Singer, where he provides cases where utility calculations failed to the opposite effect, causing despair.
Also read Nozick’s Monster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster