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

How to Do Philosophy

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 241 posts

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#61

Post by geebee »

forgotmylastone wrote: post #46
geebee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but what is "self?" what is "interested?" How does the meaning change when you put "self interested" together as a phrase? As Paul mentioned in his essay, you're already bumping into what words mean. I can tell you what an integer is, what a square root is, and what a ratio is, and as a result, I can (by looking it up in a book and typing in the text, heh heh) prove that the square root of 2 can't be expressed a…

>I can tell you what an integer is, what a square root is, and what a ratio is, and as a result, I can (by looking it up in a book and typing in the text, heh heh) prove that the square root of 2 can't be expressed as the ratio of two integers. Not without words you can't.

sure, but these words have precise definitions. Paul alluded to this when he wrote "in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings".

"Ratio", "Square Root", and "Integer" have precise definitions, whereas "self interest" is imprecise.

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#62

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

mdemare wrote: post #57
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's for the same reason that intelligent design isn't taught in biology classes, or that the timecube theory isn't taught in physics classes, or that homeopathy isn't taught in med school. Rand's output was pseudophilosophy.

But there's a lot of pseudoscience being taught today. Maybe Rand shouldn't be taught, but why isn't it? Because of the form of her output (novels)?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd say it's more important to stop teaching pseudoscience in science classes than to use it as a justification for teaching pseudophilosophy in philosophy classes. And in general, novels should be taught in literature classes, not philosophy classes - although the example of L'Etranger suggests that there is room for crossover.

(Anyway, the majority of Rand's work takes the form of non-fictional essays. Her novels made her name, but it's clear she saw them only as means to an end.)

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#63

Post by curi »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #53
axiom wrote: post #20

Two points: 1. I'm actually very surprised at how many Ayn Rand fans there are on this site. For a fringe philosophy that has fewer followers than Scientology there seems to be an unusually high concentration here. I am a big Ayn Rand fan, so this is a pleasant surprise for me. 2. Ayn Rand's book Intorduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the most interesting book on the theory of concept formation I've read. I have…

Considering that the people on this site are more or less exactly the kind of people with whom Rand surrounded herself, and anyone who fancies themselves at all creative or exceptional is likely to identify with the Roark or Galt characters (who are, nonetheless, only ever described from an external perspective) - and frankly, the more likely to so identify the less their achievements tally with their self-estimation…

I like Roark, but I think Galt is overrated. He doesn't do much. Dagny is more appealing and more similar to Roark -- they both heroically pursue active goals against stiff opposition.

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#64

Post by axiom »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #53
axiom wrote: post #20

Two points: 1. I'm actually very surprised at how many Ayn Rand fans there are on this site. For a fringe philosophy that has fewer followers than Scientology there seems to be an unusually high concentration here. I am a big Ayn Rand fan, so this is a pleasant surprise for me. 2. Ayn Rand's book Intorduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the most interesting book on the theory of concept formation I've read. I have…

Considering that the people on this site are more or less exactly the kind of people with whom Rand surrounded herself, and anyone who fancies themselves at all creative or exceptional is likely to identify with the Roark or Galt characters (who are, nonetheless, only ever described from an external perspective) - and frankly, the more likely to so identify the less their achievements tally with their self-estimation…

I like how you call Rand's work bullshit but don't provide a single example. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if you haven't read any of her work. Most of her critics haven't.

Also, it's interesting that you don't try to reconcile the fact that the Y Combinator is one of the most successful startup incubators ever, and that there is a large presence of Ayn Rand fans on here. Do ya think there might be a connection there? no of course not, it's just that entrepreneurs like to believe in bullshit.

In my experience it's very rare to meet a person who calls themselves an Objectivist who isn't way above average in intelligence and ambition. And don't tell me about the 14 yearolds you've talked to on various online forums - I don't think you'd want people to judge you by how you behaved when you were a kid. I'm talking about people 25+. All the guys I knew from university who were Objectivists are now either working at Google, some big time law firm, or have started their own company (I'm in the lattermost category.)

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#65

Post by yters »

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #37
yters wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, have you read Plato's dialogues? The defining characteristic is that they aren't philosophical treatises, i.e. not pedantic monologues claiming all knowledge. Their whole point is to stimulate the reader to think for themselves on very interesting questions.

Never ask a person of Greek descent if he's read Plato. The very idea! ;)

The Diogenes quotes are interesting, but don't they lampoon Neo Platonic thought more than Plato himself?

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#66

Post by yters »

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #39
neilc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO it's hard to argue that any philosopher is more influential than Plato, especially when you consider the clear neo-Platonic influences on Christian theology, and the subsequent influence that that tradition has had on Western civilization.

Influential, yes. Plato was an elitist to the extreme, and his notions of a rigid class hierarchy did shape early feudal civilization in Europe. But most important? Would you want to live in his Republic?

Even more important, was Socrate's Republic meant to be taken seriously?

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#67

Post by yters »

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #36
pg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, Diogenes is more important. I don't see how you can say that. He left no work. All we have to judge him by is a few probably apocryphal stories.

Plato, despite his intellect (or perhaps because of it), turned out to be, as you say yourself, "naive and mistaken". Yet Diogenes was able to see that about Plato then, as a contemporary. And while it's true that he never sat down to write anything himself, his work has endured via written accounts of others (Diogenes was a real person, not a mythical figure).

For a better presentation of the contemporary view of philosophers like Plato, you should read Aristophane's Clouds. It's also alot deeper in meaning than a mere facile mockery of poorly understood ideas.

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#68

Post by curi »

neilc wrote: post #55
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's for the same reason that intelligent design isn't taught in biology classes, or that the timecube theory isn't taught in physics classes, or that homeopathy isn't taught in med school. Rand's output was pseudophilosophy.

On what grounds would you call Rand's work "pseudophilosophy", rather than philosophy proper? Just because you don't like something does not mean it is automatically disqualified from the class of philosophies. I think that to qualify as a philosophy, something must be a system of thought that proposes a notion of metaphysics, epistemology, and a system of ethics. Rand's "output" obviously qualifies, whether you happ…

You can't verify (prove) that ID is false, or that there is no God, or anything like that. It isn't an issue for scientific tests, and certainty is never possible anyway.

Re: How to Do Philosophy

#70

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

axiom wrote: post #64
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that the people on this site are more or less exactly the kind of people with whom Rand surrounded herself, and anyone who fancies themselves at all creative or exceptional is likely to identify with the Roark or Galt characters (who are, nonetheless, only ever described from an external perspective) - and frankly, the more likely to so identify the less their achievements tally with their self-estimation…

I like how you call Rand's work bullshit but don't provide a single example. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if you haven't read any of her work. Most of her critics haven't. Also, it's interesting that you don't try to reconcile the fact that the Y Combinator is one of the most successful startup incubators ever, and that there is a large presence of Ayn Rand fans on here. Do ya think there might be a connection the…

> In fact it wouldn't surprise me if you haven't read any of her work.

Try "all her novels and at least 4 books of essays". In fact, I seem to have read more Rand than many Objectivists. It was a while ago, though, and the books have long since left my possession.

Let me guess - your next argument will be "you didn't understand it then". If so, we're done here, for the same reason I don't argue with Christian fundamentalists who claim I don't understand Christianity.

edit: Sorry, some of your other assertions amuse me.

> Also, it's interesting that you don't try to reconcile the fact that the Y Combinator is one of the most successful startup incubators ever, and that there is a large presence of Ayn Rand fans on here.

I guess you found "maybe the ability to believe bullshit... is a strength" confusing. I chose the word "strength" for a reason, although "advantage" would fit well too.

I also covered that in another thread, where you were perfectly welcome to reply. Nobody did.

> Do ya think there might be a connection there?

Correlation? Not without better data. But even if there is a correlation, that is not causation; and I find it hard to take someone who would assert otherwise seriously as a thinker.

So here's one for you. What proportion of successful YC startups were founded by Objectivists? What proportion of failed or abandoned ones were?

> In my experience it's very rare to meet a person who calls themselves an Objectivist who isn't way above average in intelligence and ambition.

In my experience it's very rare to meet a person who ridicules Objectivism who isn't way above average in intelligence, perceptiveness and sensitivity.

Shall we get into a pissing match about whose experience is better, or shall we simply agree that personal experience is not a useful data point?

> All the guys I knew from university who were Objectivists are now either working at Google

...so no self-compromise there, then...

> some big time law firm

...where integrity is so highly prized...

Post reply on HN