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

Is Philosophy an Art?

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#51

Post by dschuessler »

neonological wrote: post #37
dschuessler wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science and logic attempt to describe something central to the universe while religion and aesthetics are central to only the human experience. To place the two in the same box is a huge category error akin trying to scientifically derive creationism. I do not see in what respect this might be a category error. The „box“ all these things are put into is the box of things we can ask questions of the form „What do we…

Classic. Every philosopher responds with “your argument is philosophy, it’s ironic.” Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. Your argument basically says philosophy is an umbrella term for everything in existence. There’s no point for such a term that asks “what do we mean…

> Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up.

I did not classify all deep thought as philosophy but a very specific subset of thought: answers on questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“. Reflections on our own concepts if you will. The point of bringing it up is that as far as I can see you are taking a self-contradictory position.

I agree that you can answer the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ with a definition. That is one way of understanding the question. Yet we judge definitions to be inappropriate when it doesn’t capture what we _actually_ mean when we talk about X (just as your rhetorical question suggests that defining Wikipedia to be a „philosophy web site“ is inappropriate). So there is obviously a second meaning to the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“, one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate. It is this latter sense in which I consider philosophy to be concerned with that question.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#52

Post by routerl »

neonological wrote: post #45
routerl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretica…

The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the a…

> you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two.

Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side?

> Yeah I can meta the entire universe together

Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally.

You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism.

When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#53

Post by neonological »

Thursday24 wrote: post #49
neonological wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effort. You can create a field called the “philosophy of this rock sitting on my lawn.” And this field would fit your definition of philosophy. But there is a clear hierarchy here that is not being obeyed. Religion from certain perspectives is just made up stories. Should these made up stories be made into a field of study that is a sibling branch of science? Call it the study of religion or made up stories, no point…

Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. Th…

‘A probing speculative mind” is the rule for what goes into philosophy? I’m sure that the people who came up with a technical basis for creationism also were probing and quite speculative making creationism a philosophy.

Some vague “ a probing speculative mind” is not a good definition for a field of study. It’s way to broad and lacks preciseness.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#54

Post by specialist »

slibhb wrote: post #20

John Gray's NY Review articles are great. Reading him, it's interesting how often "new ideas" are actually old ideas that have been forgotten and are now being recycled.

Ya. I started chewing thru History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast last year. It's been great. Learning that many of our current debates are millennia old helped me calm down.

Regrettably, since I skipped college, my awareness of the classics and liberal arts is very deficient.

Now I firmly believe K-12 curriculum should include (age appropriate) ethics, civics, classics, logics, epistemology, etc. In response to "fake news", some progressives are advocating "media literacy". That's not nearly ambitious enough.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#55

Post by specialist »

idoubtit wrote: post #3

I think of philosophy of the art of words and ideas, just like literature is generally the art of words and stories. But, for historical reasons, many people and most philosophers claim philosophy is much more than this. Spinoza was convinced he was "engaged in the pursuit of truth", as the article writes, and he probably thought he had built a logical proof of the existence of god. But his concepts are fuzzy, so his…

> philosophy of the art of words and ideas

Nice.

Art is short for artifact, meaning human created. So of course philosophy is an art.

The "what is art" debate gets turgid when it drifts into "fine art" vs "pop art". Whatever. It's all art. Making distinctions is sophistry.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#56

Post by keenreed »

ANarrativeApe wrote: post #2

Working on some inforgraphics tackling gender bias a while back, I was'accused' of producing data visualization art. I defended the intellectual rigor of my work, yet lost the argument - my 'accuser' turned out to be the curator of data visualization art at the Tate Modern. He won the argument by pointing out that the work, though based on hard data, was designed to evoke an emotional rather than an intellectual resp…

Well, processing data correctly is a form of art. Raw data contain systemic biases and are not ethical. It takes an artist to cleanse data, and present them without bias in an ethical and moral way.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#57

Post by eevilspock »

qsort wrote: post #19
cardoni wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stating "there is no way to refute or evaluate philosophy" while then going on to do the same seems incongruent.

Language vs. meta-language. I completely subscribe to parent's point of view: because concepts expressed in natural language are so massively overloaded, it's very hard to make precise statements. When disciplines acquire their own method and formal language, they tend to splinter off philosophy. Think about mathematics, physics, biology, economics...

https://xkcd.com/55/

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#58

Post by harperlee »

specialist wrote: post #55
idoubtit wrote: post #3

I think of philosophy of the art of words and ideas, just like literature is generally the art of words and stories. But, for historical reasons, many people and most philosophers claim philosophy is much more than this. Spinoza was convinced he was "engaged in the pursuit of truth", as the article writes, and he probably thought he had built a logical proof of the existence of god. But his concepts are fuzzy, so his…

> philosophy of the art of words and ideas Nice. Art is short for artifact, meaning human created. So of course philosophy is an art. The "what is art" debate gets turgid when it drifts into "fine art" vs "pop art". Whatever. It's all art. Making distinctions is sophistry.

It is the converse: an artifact is made (factum) by art (arte).

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#59

Post by neonological »

dschuessler wrote: post #51
neonological wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic. Every philosopher responds with “your argument is philosophy, it’s ironic.” Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. Your argument basically says philosophy is an umbrella term for everything in existence. There’s no point for such a term that asks “what do we mean…

> Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. I did not classify all deep thought as philosophy but a very specific subset of thought: answers on questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“. Reflections on our own concepts if you will. The point of bringing i…

X can be anything on the face of the universe. ‘What do we mean when we talk about all deep thought?” It is not a subset, it’s the set of all things that can be x. It’s really just a huge black hole whenever philosophers act smug and bring this up.

Basically by placing “logic” under philosophy all logical arguments against philosophy become contradictory. Just make up a field called religionology and have logic and worshipping a cat god as it’s main tenants. Then any “logical” argument against it is part of “religionology” and therefore contradictory. Let’s all worship cats now because no logical argument can prove religionology wrong.

> one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate.

It’s still too broad. You can still apply this question to a rock on the ground. What do I really mean by that? Call it the philosophy of the rock and study it like I study science. Clearly there is a category error here as studying what I mean when I talk about that rock is not actually a philosophy.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#60

Post by bobthechef »

idoubtit wrote: post #3

I think of philosophy of the art of words and ideas, just like literature is generally the art of words and stories. But, for historical reasons, many people and most philosophers claim philosophy is much more than this. Spinoza was convinced he was "engaged in the pursuit of truth", as the article writes, and he probably thought he had built a logical proof of the existence of god. But his concepts are fuzzy, so his…

> many people and most philosophers claim philosophy is much more than this.

Yes, philosophy is ultimately motivated by the search for truth. (Art, too, if we are talking about something like literature, is motivated by expressing the truth, otherwise it is worthless.)

> Spinoza was convinced he was "engaged in the pursuit of truth", as the article writes, and he probably thought he had built a logical proof of the existence of god [sic]. But his concepts are fuzzy, so his reasoning is unprovable, and his apparent rigorousness is not at all scientific.

Putting aside the question of whether this is true, let us assume it is. So what? This is what philosophical discourse will involve: clarifying what needs clarifying, arguing, counterarguing, etc. Second, you've fallen prey to the mystique surrounding the word "scientific" as if science were somehow more definitive or competent or whatever, or that none of these problems afflict science. And of course, that in itself is a philosophical assertion!

> Many philosophers disagree with his theories, and none of them are wrong or better or worse than Spinoza, since there is no way to refute or evaluate philosophy.

They aren't? That, again, is a philosophical assertion. And the very act of defending it would tacitly presuppose that _your_ philosophical argument is better than Spinoza's, which would make it self-refuting. Because if it's all the same, then so your argument.

> Apart from these points (proof, progress, consensus),

What is a proof? An argument. People disagree over those.

What is progress? You assume there isn't contentious.

How does consensus make something true? (It doesn't.)

> No one would claim to be an expert of a philosopher without reading and studying his book and articles. But, if the substance was more important than the form, it should not matter. One can master Gauss' mathematics or Einstein's physics without reading the original works.

This is neither here no there. The reason an expert on Spinoza should have read Spinoza is because everything that is about Spinoza's work is commentary and all commentary involves interpretation. So, yeah, if you're a scholar of Spinoza, and we have surviving works by Spinoza, it would seem rather odd if you didn't know what Spinoza said and only what others have said about Spinoza. You might disagree. The same would hold if you were a scholar of Einstein. A physicist, however, is not a scholar of Einstein, and as such, is not so interested in what he thought per se, however illuminating the original texts might be.

Post reply on HN