Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 242 posts

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#171

Post by olooney »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #161
olooney wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter. If we are not quite so certain perhaps we should not prematurely put the kibosh on ideas just because they run afoul of one particular point of view, but rather let them all into the arena to fight it out?

Are you saying a potentially true idea could commit known fallacies? If so, what you’re really saying is that analytical philosophy is in question... in that case, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you.

That is correct. As my argument was not a proposition expressed in or reducible to a formal language, nor was it an empirically verifiable statement of fact, it is neither true nor false but is in fact meaningless. There was no point in my expressing it, and there is certainly no point in you arguing with it. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#172

Post by anonuser123456 »

yters wrote: post #105
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,…

Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.

Name one prominent modern atheist that is clueless when it comes to the theism discussion and present one point he/she misrepresents/lacks understanding of.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#173

Post by mjburgess »

coldtea wrote: post #34
Veen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the century plus old distinction between analytical and continental philosophy The article's claim is not that this distinction doesn't exist or that it is not a useful distinction, but that "pseudophilosphers" tend to equivocate between "truth as some property of the universe" and "truth as it matters to us". That seems to me to be an interesting position that is worth considering. (btw. the claim that "The d…

> but that "pseudophilosphers" tend to equivocate between "truth as some property of the universe" and "truth as it matters to us". Which he fails to demonstrate - besides them using the same term for both (which everybody does). He also fails to realize that "truth as some property of the universe" in many cases is only available through "truth as it matters to us" anyway. In which case, it's wrong to extend your cl…

So you're defence of foucault's language is that: (1) there is no practical distinction; so (2) let's not make any.

(1) is by the way False.

It is precisely by establishing epistemic standards for deciding when we are mistaken, and when not, that we are able to evaluate historical sources and even formulate the claim that they are "subject to power relations".

So your defence is rests precisely on the sort of underhanded equivocation being described.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#174

Post by guerrilla »

denton-scratch wrote: post #131
whimsicalism wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect they are saying more analytic philosophy education a la departments in Britain and America would have lead to more critical thinking.

Publishing books on analytical philosophy, logical philosophy, and philosophy of language generally doesn't get you a bestseller that makes you rich and famous.

I mean Logicomix could have done worse ;)

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#175

Post by yters »

anthk wrote: post #164
yters wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.

Theism is bullshit, as much as people reading cards, voodoo or the horoscopes.

Your response proves my point.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#176

Post by yters »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #172
yters wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.

Name one prominent modern atheist that is clueless when it comes to the theism discussion and present one point he/she misrepresents/lacks understanding of.

The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism. Although I will say I like how upfront and clear Dawkins is in his statements. Bertrand Russell at least had the intellectual honesty to admit the ontological argument is logically valid (which is now proven with a computational theorem prover), and says it is very difficult to identify the problem with the argument even though it feels unsatisfying.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#177

Post by pseudolus »

It's somewhat tangential but it's quite amusing to hear that in France many academics are decrying the importation of "American" schools of social science and the effect it's having on French society [0]. Quite the "volte-face" with respect to ongoing complaints in some corners of the American press about the pernicious influence of Derrida and Foucault on American society.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#178

Post by boo_boo »

denton-scratch wrote: post #126
tgv wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> 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.

Yes, let's throw all of epistemology into the trash

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#179

Post by wnoise »

denton-scratch wrote: post #92
zyxzevn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity and language: It is always funny how long boring sentences are found in philosophy. I think the problem is that our language is lacking in clarity for describing the subtle nuances of reasoning and logic. And sadly it is a bit confusing. Especially if one (like me), does not know all the people listed in the paragraphs. Personally I tend to shorten the sentences and focus on the presentation of the informa…

> Long boring sentences OMG Willard Quine! I was told he was an excellent writer. I accept that his reasoning/arguments were very lucid; I did not find his writing lucid. > our language is lacking in clarity I take it you mean English. English is highly allusive and ambiguous. Many words that mean completely different things are spelled the same. Many concepts are referred to by severaal different words, typically im…

> English is highly allusive

Absolutely.

> and ambiguous

extremely rarely.

> Many words that mean completely different things are spelled the same

Homographs are rarely a problem precisely because they generally mean completely different things. Inelegant, sure.

> Many concepts are referred to by severaal different words, typically imported from different languages, and carrying different connotations.

Mostly true, but the richness of English vocabulary is the exact opposite of a problem. When you need to distinguish between shades of meaning, having more words available is useful. English doesn't have the problems of using the same word for 'high' and 'tall'; or for 'pasta', 'paste', and 'dough'; or for 'pen' and 'feather'. Loneliness and solitude really are distinguishable states.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#180

Post by tyrust »

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…

>As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI

If you don't mind answering: what is it that you do?

Post reply on HN