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

Whither philosophy?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 192 posts

Re: Whither philosophy?

#51

Post by jfengel »

simbolit wrote: post #10
b450 wrote: post #7

The argument is sometimes made that philosophy is the mother of all other academic traditions - once a philosophical idea reaches a sufficient level of promise or maturity, it spins off into its own discipline, as in the speciation of "natural philosophy" into specialized hard sciences. One might even point to psychology (or even more contentiously and partially, computer science) as a 20th century offshoots of philo…

> today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful I hold multiple degrees in philosophy and this is a correct description (for >95% of what happens in academic philosophy).

And that's OK. It's not expensive, and it's useful to have a place for off-the-wall notions that probably won't pay off.

It's always going to be contentious, because even that small pot of money will attract many different grasping hands. But it seems a worthwhile tradeoff, Just In Case. At least as much as, say, the more abstruse areas of theoretical physics and mathematics.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#52

Post by vehemenz »

keiferski wrote: post #49
vehemenz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious—why do you lump Jordan Peterson in with Sam Harris, other than that they both write popular nonfiction?

I’d call them both public pseudointellectuals that purport some philosophical knowledge but mostly don’t engage with the actual academic field, and instead just court controversy to sell books and speaking tours.

You'll get no argument from me about Jordan Peterson. However, I'm having trouble reconciling your apparent reverence for "the actual academic field," when Sam Harris thinks and argues like so many of them, including the philosophers he has on his podcast. Blaming him for courting controversy is no different than blaming professional philosophers for avoiding it. Necessities of the trade. I don't think that objection sticks.

If there are more substantive problems you have with Harris, then I would be surprised. And I would be surprised if the same problems weren't present among academic philosophers. But if you undermine the credibility of too many academic philosophers, then his lack of engagement can't be held against him.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#53

Post by keiferski »

vehemenz wrote: post #52
keiferski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d call them both public pseudointellectuals that purport some philosophical knowledge but mostly don’t engage with the actual academic field, and instead just court controversy to sell books and speaking tours.

You'll get no argument from me about Jordan Peterson. However, I'm having trouble reconciling your apparent reverence for "the actual academic field," when Sam Harris thinks and argues like so many of them, including the philosophers he has on his podcast. Blaming him for courting controversy is no different than blaming professional philosophers for avoiding it. Necessities of the trade. I don't think that objection…

Harris is not taken seriously as a philosopher by the academic philosophy community.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search/?q=Sam+Harris+...

Re: Whither philosophy?

#54

Post by simbolit »

richardanaya wrote: post #33
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that Ayn Rand is a philosopher in any meaningful sense is very debatable. Its not entirely unfair, though "polemicist" is more accurate than "philosopher"; moreso than to say that Ayn Rand is worth reading in any meaningful way, at least. > She was an author of fiction, like Terry Pratchett. In terms of the works that make this a reasonable statement, I would more say she was an author of religious (or, if…

Calling Ayn Rand religious, is a clear sign you know nothing about her. Her entire work is basically a claim that objective reality should paid attention to in our beliefs.

If you have an internet archive account (and even free market fanatics should have), these are 328 pages you might want to read:

https://archive.org/embed/isobjectivismrel0000elli

Albert Ellis (1968) Is Objectivism a religion?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#55

Post by simbolit »

richardanaya wrote: post #32
hotnfresh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far'd you make it in The Virtue of Selfishness before throwing it across the room for yet another dubious premise that's presented as fact without justification, used to build a giant sandcastle of reasoning upon, and never revisited with an eye to addressing the obvious objections to it?

Your notion that any philosophers write books that have complete philosophical justifications from metaphysics to politics in a single book is a strange one. As I told the other person not familiar with her writings, she has an incredible amount of books and essays. The most important being her book on epistemology.

The very least you could do is use the proper title:

Ayn Rand (1966/1979) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

it can be found on libgen, if people are really interested. (It's not a good book.)

Re: Whither philosophy?

#56

Post by hotnfresh »

simbolit wrote: post #55
richardanaya wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your notion that any philosophers write books that have complete philosophical justifications from metaphysics to politics in a single book is a strange one. As I told the other person not familiar with her writings, she has an incredible amount of books and essays. The most important being her book on epistemology.

The very least you could do is use the proper title: Ayn Rand (1966/1979) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology it can be found on libgen, if people are really interested. (It's not a good book.)

> it can be found on libgen, if people are really interested. (It's not a good book.)

Yowzer. I'd never dug quite that deep. You're not kidding.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#57

Post by bccdee »

_yb2s wrote: post #48
b450 wrote: post #7

The argument is sometimes made that philosophy is the mother of all other academic traditions - once a philosophical idea reaches a sufficient level of promise or maturity, it spins off into its own discipline, as in the speciation of "natural philosophy" into specialized hard sciences. One might even point to psychology (or even more contentiously and partially, computer science) as a 20th century offshoots of philo…

> the view that philosophy is supposed to be therapeutic I think this is what is missing from most modern philosophy, that makes it so easy to dismiss as useless. In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. People strove to become a Stoi…

> In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value.

Are you just describing Stoicism here? The only "strong man" ancient philosopher I can think of is Marcus Aurelius (not Greek, incidentally). Plato's Republic didn't come from his experience as a statesman. Aristotle's Metaphysics wasn't "proven to have utility in the real world." These people were very much "ivory tower" figures.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#58

Post by bccdee »

richardanaya wrote: post #8

[flagged]

> Everyone else is just a long drawn out claim that we live in a false reality compared to another dimension or that man is impotent to know reality

Can you name one mainstream philosopher, besides Plato, whose primary focus was the idea that we live in a false reality? (Not that that was even Plato's primary focus.) That's such an odd complaint. Do you think Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Sartre were all just complaining about how the universe is unknowable because we can't directly access the realm of forms?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#59

Post by _yb2s »

bccdee wrote: post #57
_yb2s wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the view that philosophy is supposed to be therapeutic I think this is what is missing from most modern philosophy, that makes it so easy to dismiss as useless. In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. People strove to become a Stoi…

> In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. Are you just describing Stoicism here? The only "strong man" ancient philosopher I can think of is Marcus Aurelius (not Greek, incidentally). Plato's Republic didn't come from his experience…

Yes, I am mostly talking about Stoicism, but the older philosophers that the Stoics revered like Socrates were often discussed or admired by Stoics more in the context of their personal lives, rather than their philosophy.

Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato were all soldiers or military leaders. Epictetus was a slave that was crippled from abuse. Viktor Frankl and James Stockdale are both fairly modern people that survived extreme hardship using stoic ideas.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#60

Post by [deleted] »

jl6 wrote: post #45

Philosophy is mostly a maladaptive male response to childlessness. OK, OK, perhaps that’s unfair, but it’s surprising how male the discipline of philosophy is, and how many of the big names had no kids.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN