Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#121

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #52

As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…

I've done well by staying clear of anyone airing their thoughts about post-modernity in the past 15 years. (perhaps with the exception of some very few individuals like Zizek).

This is because of the constant efforts from conservative pseudo-philosopher's like Stephen Hicks[0] (who on his YT channel hasn't shied away from inviting neo-Nazis to talk about the subject) all the way to JP[1] who do not understand the topic yet enjoy discrediting and twist the ideas of post-modernity. The odd thing is that these ideas have not been traditionally linked to the left.

I find most people who have an opinion about the subject often have not studied them, nor have they read any (or very few) of the original thinkers, and rather form their minds by listening to condensed misrepresentations in tweet-storms, etc.

[0] https://crookedtimber.org/2020/03/04/rightwing-postmodernism...

[1] https://lachlanrdale.medium.com/analysing-jordan-petersons-v...

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#122

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

maze-le wrote: post #117

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave some examples of what this kind of truth doesn’t cover. Fire is hot. Australia exists. This table is wooden. The sun is hot. Could you give some examples of what it does cover?

Currency XYZ is stable. This sentence reflects a socially constructed truth (or falsehood) insofar as we have to agree on what the symbol XYZ stands for, what a currency is (is bitcoin a currency, are apples -- depends on the context) and what criteria of stability we have. We can measure the exchange rate of a currency compared to others and we can define criteria for what we call stability in this context -- and we…

[deleted]

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#123

Post by kderbyma » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

mrkeen wrote: post #42

> Harris’s failure to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that he criticises > Lawrence Krauss engages with philosophical arguments for theism without understanding them properly. Most saliently, he ends up criticising a caricature version of the so-called cosmological argument about the existence of God. Oof. Perhaps back up those drive-by-shootings with some clarification. > Usually,…

couldn't agree more... the use profundity that many times....obscurantist..... sounds like a bunch of pseudophilosophising to me

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#124

Post by andagainagain » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #52

As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…

It almsot sounds likes what we need is a differentiation of words. Most people that like "philosophy" disagree on what they mean. I mean, that's a layman problem. But if philosophers themselves disagree on what philosophy in general is, then perhaps it should differentiate into specific philosophies.

Say, "scientific philosophy", which is the subset of thinking that considers philosophy as a science, with assigned true/false values. Then the rest of the philosophies can name themselves, or otherwise in aggregate consider themselves the nonscientific philosophies.

Would that work you think?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#125

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

maze-le wrote: post #117

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave some examples of what this kind of truth doesn’t cover. Fire is hot. Australia exists. This table is wooden. The sun is hot. Could you give some examples of what it does cover?

Currency XYZ is stable. This sentence reflects a socially constructed truth (or falsehood) insofar as we have to agree on what the symbol XYZ stands for, what a currency is (is bitcoin a currency, are apples -- depends on the context) and what criteria of stability we have. We can measure the exchange rate of a currency compared to others and we can define criteria for what we call stability in this context -- and we…

Are these examples like saying "this movie sucks" or “specific person X is tall?” In that “tall” is fuzzy and social, but if we agreed on a precise definition (“any person at least Y height is defined as tall“), we could give it truth in the photon sense, but as it’s collectively used today, it’s too imprecise a word to assign true or false?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#126

Post by denton-scratch » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #56

coldtea wrote: post #22

> Often, it’s due to simple misunderstandings (such as confusing truth with belief or knowledge), but sometimes it’s due rather to wilful obscurity Sorry, but the pseudophilosopher here is the author of the article. He can't disambiguate between truth as some property of the universe/time-space/actual historical occurence, and truth as it matters to us, and thinks that just because Foucault doesn't spell the distinct…

How can you disagree without agreeing what "truth" means?

Ha!

Well, "obviously" everything that I know must be truth; otherwise it would be mere belief. But for everything I think I know, there's someone that believes different. In that light, it seems unreasonable for anyone to think they have access to truth.

So truth seems to be reduced (or elevated?) to something we can never reach, and only aspire to. It makes it into some kind of metaphysical object, whose nature can't be empirically established.

I think it's best to avoid talking about truth, when trying to do philosophy. Just do the reasoning, and draw some conclusions if you can.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#127

Post by TZubiri » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

mrkeen wrote: post #42

> Harris’s failure to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that he criticises > Lawrence Krauss engages with philosophical arguments for theism without understanding them properly. Most saliently, he ends up criticising a caricature version of the so-called cosmological argument about the existence of God. Oof. Perhaps back up those drive-by-shootings with some clarification. > Usually,…

I remember the exact dismissal of Peterson's critics of Foucalt .

"He doesn't understand him, therefore his criticism is invalid." period. It's conductive to nowhere, and gatekeeps critics to a light variety.

Reading someone's work should be the only requirement to offer views on them.

That said, Peterson didn't read Marx.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#128

Post by TimTheTinker » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

olooney wrote: post #86

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is called the "demarcation problem" and is surprisingly difficult and subtle. It would seem to me that the analogous "philosophical demarcation problem" is even more difficult and probably completely meaningless because of the open and fluid nature of philosophy itself. The author believes that "pseudophilosophy," whatever that is, encourages confused and self-indulgent think…

Philosophy as a field may be “open and fluid” to an extent, but analytical philosophy isn’t at all. As the author writes, there are basic, well-established methods for sniffing out fallacious ideas.

All ideas—even those originating from the philosophy department itself—ought to be subjected to basic analytical philosophy before being let out the door. I think that’s what this piece boils down to.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#129

Post by denton-scratch » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

nescioquid wrote: post #51

082349872349872 wrote: post #8

In the Phaedrus, it was predicted that writing and reading in general (let alone specific examples such as pseudophilosophy) would eventually encourage confused, self-indulgent thinking. > You offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, s…

There's a strand of suspicion towards literacy in Plato. Mainly I'm thinking of the dialog in which Socrates talks to a man about to sue his father (I'm sorry, I'm blanking on the name of the dialog); mainly the idea is that writing enfeebles the memory and intellect. > In the Phaedrus, it was predicted that writing and reading in general... would eventually encourage confused, self-indulgent thinking. We don't learn…

Plato was an elitist; he wasn't against reading and writing in general, he simply thought that proles and people who weren't "like him" shouldn't be allowed to attempt it.

2,200 years later, I find I disagree. There's much that is good in Plato, but I don't include his social opinions.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#130

Post by eeZah7Ux » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #121

jonathanstrange wrote: post #52

As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…

I've done well by staying clear of anyone airing their thoughts about post-modernity in the past 15 years. (perhaps with the exception of some very few individuals like Zizek). This is because of the constant efforts from conservative pseudo-philosopher's like Stephen Hicks[0] (who on his YT channel hasn't shied away from inviting neo-Nazis to talk about the subject) all the way to JP[1] who do not understand the top…

peterson is an excellent example of pseudo-philosophy. Unfortunately the HN crowd appears to be an easy prey, based on all the downvotes you are getting...