The end of Philosophy
nytimes.com
The end of Philosophy
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: The end of Philosophy
#2The article talks as if the idea that moral judgements are based on feeling or perception rather than on reason is a recent one. As one (important) example, Hume explicitly advocated such a position in the 1700s.
It also seems to confuse moral philosophy and moral psychology. The former can use reason and arguments to attempt to justify practical principles and actions (at least somewhat) independently of how, psychologically, human agents, in fact, make moral judgements in real-life situations.
"The End of Philosophy" is a silly title because, for a start, what is discussed is only relevant to moral philosophy; and secondly, whatever firm scientific results may be produced regarding moral psychology, there are still endless issues that moral philosophers can continue to sensibly discuss, for example, the semantics of (what appear to be) deductive moral arguments.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#3The article talks as if the idea that moral judgements are based on feeling or perception rather than on reason is a recent one. As one (important) example, Hume explicitly advocated such a position in the 1700s. It also seems to confuse moral philosophy and moral psychology. The former can use reason and arguments to attempt to justify practical principles and actions (at least somewhat) independently of how, psycho…
It's like The End of History; a silly title for a silly piece of writing.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#4Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"?
"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."
It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capable of answering. The contents of the article (though not scientific) have been shaped by scientific insights. Doesn't it sort of back up the idea that we can do morality without god? if anything, wouldn't that give the "new" atheists some backing?
Re: The end of Philosophy
#5Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"? "It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning." It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capab…
I was also annoyed by that -- the implication seems to be that atheists are necessarily cold, calculating and logical.
I don't find that accepting the existence of emotions in decision making has any impact on my religious beliefs.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#6"Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know."
Speak for yourself, Brooks. Apparently he was the kind of kid who put ketchup on everything and never really grew out of it.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#7"Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know." Speak for yourself, Brooks. Apparently he was the kind of kid who put ketchup on everything and never really grew out of it.
[deleted]
Re: The end of Philosophy
#8I don't agree with his premise that people can't use reason to come to good moral principles, and then act on them.
Figuring out morality his way--by emotion--would be abdicating your power to make positive change and leaving everything to random influences upon your life. A woman was mean to me as a kid? Well, I'll hate women. Everyone I know goes to church, and I have come to love Jesus? Well, that must be the right answer, then. That's what happens if you go by emotion.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#9Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"? "It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning." It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capab…
Sam Harris covered this stuff in The End of Faith. It's depressing how few critics of "new atheists" have read the people they have beef with; then again, it's even more depressing how few atheists make successful communication a priority.
Re: The end of Philosophy
#10I don't agree with his premise that people can't use reason to come to good moral principles, and then act on them. Figuring out morality his way--by emotion--would be abdicating your power to make positive change and leaving everything to random influences upon your life. A woman was mean to me as a kid? Well, I'll hate women. Everyone I know goes to church, and I have come to love Jesus? Well, that must be the righ…
On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read: emotions). If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions.
Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of pure reason. I think he's right.