Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

Personally, I see that lukeprog demonstrates an anti-intellectualism when he states, 'Another paper arguing about the definition of "knowledge"? No thanks.'

I'm trying very hard to not be rude and laugh at the ridiculousness of eliminating certain philosophical studies/classes that lukeprog suggests.

Let me first say I lean more towards unalone's thoughts on this matter. But essentially, I believe what is going on here is an ideological battle that has occurred many times in the history of Western philosophy (to quote a certain someone). That is, what is the purpose of philosophy and who should it serve?

Philosophy, if it perfected anything, is the art of meta and intertextuality. Yes, even the latter. Read Euripides.

Philosophy has mathematical philosophers, it has scientific philosophers, it has gnostic philosophers, it has theological philosophers, and a long list of etcetera. But to narrow it down ideologically to one single thing the way lukeprog desires, is a foolish thing and unproductive to philosophy at its core. Why? Because any student of philosophy will tell you that asking 'What is knowledge?' is philosophy. Epistemology (the study of knowledge) is an important part of philosophy because philosophy is very much tied to culture as it is to history as it is to rationality and logic. To reduce philosophy to only its practical components and, this is the important part for me, oppressing certain philosophies is no better than trying to erase part of someone's culture.

But all this has already been discussed in philosophy with regard to Bertrand Russell's approach. The fact that all of us are having this discussion is philosophy. Some philosophies do not want to be science, and no one should force them to.

If you watch The Philosophers' Football Match (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8), for example, there is a meta discussion and intertextual reference going on that is never mentioned, but it exists. It gives as much insight into what philosophy is for each country as a study on truth tables or logic.

I see how this criticizes one branch of intellectual thought within one discipline. I don't see how it is anti-intellectual. Luke runs the singularity institute, an organization dedicated to a highly specific and speculative conception of humanity's future (and a mistaken one in my opinion). You're trying to convince me this is not an intellectual activity? That he's anti-intellectual? This is rubbish, and you're just being defensive because he's attacking a specific set of ideas you value.

"Epistemology (the study of knowledge) is an important part of philosophy because philosophy is very much tied to culture as it is to history as it is to rationality and logic."

If you had read Pearl, you would understand that it is foremost, an epistemological theory. Luke is not rejecting the study of knowledge as a whole, he is bemoaning that only computer scientists and statisticians are learning a theory of knowledge that he believes supersedes the majority of historical philosophical thought on the matter. I strongly agree with him on that point. I think there's still value in teaching Aristotle et all, but that exactly as you say above, the perspective should be historical.

I agree that Luke is being a bit hyperbolic in the language of his post, but the vast majority of people responding here do not understand what he is advocating because they simply HAVE NOT READ THE BOOKS HE IS SUGGESTING YOU READ. And so they attempt to argue against his suggestion, not even knowing what motivates it or its merits.

Someone here pointed out that this wholesale dismissal of philosophy is a category mistake (a welcome reference to Aristotle), and I agree. If you will forgive my speaking too broadly, the difficulty many non-philosophers seem to have with philosophy is simply that they do not know what it is—and more importantly, that they have never done it. I do not fault them for this (and I'll readily admit that our academies are very much at fault here, as the professionalization of philosophy has done no favors for philosophers or non-philosophers) but one ought to have, if not enough humility, at least enough love for truth to motivate silence, study, or wonder in the face of the unknown—not slander.

Philosophy (and especially Plato's philosophy) is not the sort of thing for which one uses a textbook. If you recall the Phaedrus (and if you don't recall the Phaedrus, you probably should not be commenting on philosophy) you'll remember that Plato has an argument against books. He worries that books will codify doxa in such a way as to stifle inquiry—a worry that was clearly warranted, as evidenced by this thread. Thus he preferred dialogues to dissertations, and precisely because the individual appropriation of knowledge, and the harmonizing of the person with reality, is what really counts—not knowing (or believing) a bunch of stuff. It is important to remember that Plato, even when making myths, is imminently and always practical.

Those who advocate that contemporary science is better equipped than philosophy to answer the big questions, because science "examines reality, etc." fail to recognize that "reality" itself is big question. In my own experience, I have often found it amusing how quickly some "scientists" dismiss philosophy, while I've met very few philosophers who would do the same for science. It is fine if one wants to ignore philosophy, but it is hubris to dismiss it simply because it does not do what one wants it to do.

Nietzsche's argument against the existence of God has become a common argument against any and all truth. Zarathustra tells his disciples: "If there were gods, how could I stand not to be a god! Therefore there are no gods."

Therefore do not study philosophy.

I really see this as a problem. It should be possible to teach critical thinking with more engagement with the world. Anyone can poke holes. It's much harder and more worthwhile to submit patches.

Reminds me of something I recently read:

>If you had gone to Epictetus and said, "I want to live a good life. What should I do?" he would have had an answer for you: "Live in accordance with nature." He would then have told you, in great detail, how to do this.

>If you went to a twentieth-century analytic philosopher and asked the same question, he probably would have responded not by answering the question you asked but by analyzing the question itself: "The answer to your question depends on what you mean by "a good life," which in turn depends on what you mean by "good" and "a life." He might then walk you through all the things you could conceivably mean in asking how to live a good life and explain why each of these meanings is logically muddled. His conclusion: It makes no sense to ask how to live a good life. When this philosopher had finished speaking, you might be impressed with his flair for philosophical analysis, but you might also conclude, with good reason, that he himself lacked a coherent philosophy of life.