A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#2Claims philosophers do useful stuff but doesn't mention the best example: Karl Popper (who most philosophers don't like because he had the audacity to actually solve a philosophical problem!)
Meanwhile, fails to distance himself from Wittgenstein, and responds to pg's claim that philosophers argue semantics by defending it! (BTW Popper is one of the philosopher who does not argue semantics.)
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#3If a philosophy is valid it doesn't need a defense.
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#4Well argued, although I am not well versed enough in Philosophy to make a comment about its completeness.
One of the most interesting things I find about pg's essays is that they always take such an interesting position on a problem or issue. I've always thought that there is at least one interesting counter position for all of his essays. We need to see more of these; I think it would lead to many fruitful discussions.
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#5If a philosophy is valid it doesn't need a defense.
What does that mean?
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#6If a philosophy is valid it doesn't need a defense.
Tell that to all the significant ideas in the last several thousand years that were ridiculed and suppressed.... starting with evolution.
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#7Well argued, although I am not well versed enough in Philosophy to make a comment about its completeness. One of the most interesting things I find about pg's essays is that they always take such an interesting position on a problem or issue. I've always thought that there is at least one interesting counter position for all of his essays. We need to see more of these; I think it would lead to many fruitful discussio…
How is it well argued? He concedes that pg is right about most philosophy in the conclusion section. He protests, protests, protests, then concedes. lol. His conceding does come with an assertion that philosophy came clean recently, but he doesn't bother giving some citations for that. Which philosophers admitted philosophy was mostly junk? Who came clean? What did they do to fix it?
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#8Well argued, although I am not well versed enough in Philosophy to make a comment about its completeness. One of the most interesting things I find about pg's essays is that they always take such an interesting position on a problem or issue. I've always thought that there is at least one interesting counter position for all of his essays. We need to see more of these; I think it would lead to many fruitful discussio…
How is it well argued? He concedes that pg is right about most philosophy in the conclusion section. He protests, protests, protests, then concedes. lol. His conceding does come with an assertion that philosophy came clean recently, but he doesn't bother giving some citations for that . Which philosophers admitted philosophy was mostly junk? Who came clean? What did they do to fix it?
Conceding that pg is right about most philosophy doesn't take away from his argument. If I conceded that most programs written in the last 5 years are garbage, would you conclude programming in general is also garbage?
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it well argued? He concedes that pg is right about most philosophy in the conclusion section. He protests, protests, protests, then concedes. lol. His conceding does come with an assertion that philosophy came clean recently, but he doesn't bother giving some citations for that . Which philosophers admitted philosophy was mostly junk? Who came clean? What did they do to fix it?
Conceding that pg is right about most philosophy doesn't take away from his argument. If I conceded that most programs written in the last 5 years are garbage, would you conclude programming in general is also garbage?
The guy says:
"The simplest flaw in PG’s account is its scope: it implicates most philosophers up to the present"
That's what he's trying to argue with, and that is PG's claim (not that all philosophy is worthless). But then he simply concedes at the end, like he forgot his own thesis.
Re: A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conceding that pg is right about most philosophy doesn't take away from his argument. If I conceded that most programs written in the last 5 years are garbage, would you conclude programming in general is also garbage?
The guy says: "The simplest flaw in PG’s account is its scope: it implicates most philosophers up to the present" That's what he's trying to argue with, and that is PG's claim (not that all philosophy is worthless). But then he simply concedes at the end, like he forgot his own thesis.
Fair enough; but I would argue that the main thesis in the counter essay has nothing to do with the scope of pg's argument. In fact, I think the author would have been better off leaving the issue of scope out of his essay. The main body of the counter essay lies in the intermittent sections between the introduction and the end.
The biggest disagreement I see between the author and pg is the current state and value of philosophy. This is why I view the authors concession that most current philosophy might be garbage as largely irrelevant.