How to Do Philosophy

Post by lst » Sun, Sep 23, 2007, 11:59 AM UTC

rms wrote: post #141

lst wrote: post #140

Do you know that Darwinism is becoming more and more obsolete? It's not me saying this, but many major scientiscts. The only reason for Darwinism still to exist is because of the atheists. But atheists are extreme - an intelligent human should leave the question open, and not stupidly deny something nobody can really know by reasoning (since God is transcendent by definition).

You mean that evolutionary theory is becoming more refined over time. This makes the case for science, not the theistic God of the Hebrews.

Post by aaronsw » Sun, Sep 23, 2007, 6:15 PM UTC

asdflkj wrote: post #93

uuilly wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but you're jumping down the rabbit hole to quickly. Physicists assume spherical cows, early mathematicians assumed only integers, why can't Rand assume that "self" is the thoughts and actions encased in one's skin? It is a good jump off point and a lot of useful philosophies can be derived from there. Sure they eventually break down once you push the definitions hard enough, but that just means the model needs to…

Actually, there already is stuff that's far more refined (and empirically true) than Ayn Rand. It's called evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, understanding it leaves one feeling rather unedified. It's like realizing that you've been a pawn in somebody else's game, and will continue to be one until your life ends. With Ayn Rand fans, this kind of message doesn't seem to be in demand.

Post by euccastro » Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 12:40 AM UTC

ingenium wrote: post #10

I'm currently a philosophy of science and molecular biology double major, and I have to say I agree with Paul Graham's criticisms of traditional philosophy. None of it really makes sense, and is generally nothing more than someone's opinion. Yet we hold philosophers such as Aristotle in high regard. Philosophy of science is different from classical philosophy in that it focuses on more concrete aspects. One of the be…

Post by euccastro » Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 12:55 AM UTC

bluishgreen wrote: post #100

jraines wrote: post #72

Reading philosophy is still good mental exercise, and it gives you interesting ways to think about the world. Learning to call bullshit on intimidating ideas is a good thing to learn. I agree that one test of it is whether it changes the way you do things -- or at least gives you an imperative to do so that you're too weak or cowardly to heed (see Nietzche, Thoreau, Schopenhauer, Seneca). But I dunno -- the whole mat…

I dunno about math. But conclusively telling people in clear terms that we were all monkeys once asserts equality of humankind in a brutally ironic way.

Post by twinings » Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 1:11 AM UTC

prakash wrote: post #14

icey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible you had enough energy to type such a pointless complaint, but you couldn't be bothered to read a couple of pages? Would pictures help? Maybe some cartoon animals sounding out the words for you?

lol. I am big PG fan, but the non-startup articles don't appeal to me, this in particular.