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

What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#11

Post by copsarebastards »

Philosophy has become disconnected with real-life concerns. Philosophers operate in a void, working on problems without context. Attempts to connect this work with real-life concerns usually involve taking an idea developed without context and trying to apply it to a field (computer ethics, philosophy of scientific methods, etc.).

This works poorly because the philosopher doesn't understand the field. A computer scientist is better qualified to talk about the ethics of Ladar Levison not cooperating with the FBI[1] than an ethicist. A chemist is more qualified to talk about the scientific method than an epistemologist. Specializations have eroded the area of expertise of philosophy to the point that philosophy is rarely relevant.

There's just no case I can think of where talking to a philosopher is likely to inform my decision-making process more than talking to an expert in the actual subject.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#12

Post by eli_gottlieb »

orthoganol wrote: post #7
amelius wrote: post #2

The problem with philosophy is that it seems to make progress only very slowly. As an outsider, it seems that their fundamental questions are still at the same level as those of Socrates and Plato. It would have been nice if this article had addressed this issue. For instance, by discussing what are the most important insights of the last decade.

I feel like a lot of outsiders see people like Zizek, and get the impression that philosophy today has a lot do with language and psychoanalysis. I'm not exactly sure what the insights are, but it at least feels like a very different brand than Socrates badgering people about what is justice.

Socrates is analytic -- well, proto-analytic. Zizek is Continental.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#13

Post by [deleted] »

ahallock wrote: post #8

I would love to force people to pay for things I love to do. There's nothing wrong with teaching philosophy, but stealing money to do so is wrong and lazy. What if I'd rather my money go toward cancer research? This guy would deny me that opportunity. He's saying his preferences are more important than mine. There are plenty of ways to make money teaching philosophy: donations (see FDR on Youtube as an example), book…

[deleted]

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#14

Post by sktrdie »

I feel differently from most people in this thread. Academia is not industry, and is not really driven by a capitalist market. You can debate that philosophy, and many other theoretical fields, have very little value in the market, and perhaps they do. But in reality, the richest countries are the ones that have strong research curriculums, with people studying things that are not immediately beneficial or even useful.

I'd want to live in a society where people can work in all kinds of fields that study nature and the human intellect, and not just jobs that are needed because of some economical reason.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#15

Post by gaius »

orthoganol wrote: post #7
amelius wrote: post #2

The problem with philosophy is that it seems to make progress only very slowly. As an outsider, it seems that their fundamental questions are still at the same level as those of Socrates and Plato. It would have been nice if this article had addressed this issue. For instance, by discussing what are the most important insights of the last decade.

I feel like a lot of outsiders see people like Zizek, and get the impression that philosophy today has a lot do with language and psychoanalysis. I'm not exactly sure what the insights are, but it at least feels like a very different brand than Socrates badgering people about what is justice.

Zizek is to Nietzsche as Dan Brown is to Shakespeare.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#16

Post by javert »

sktrdie wrote: post #14

I feel differently from most people in this thread. Academia is not industry, and is not really driven by a capitalist market. You can debate that philosophy, and many other theoretical fields, have very little value in the market, and perhaps they do. But in reality, the richest countries are the ones that have strong research curriculums, with people studying things that are not immediately beneficial or even usefu…

Having a lot of professors living on the public dime and not contributing anything back is the effect of a rich (and decadent) society, not the cause.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#17

Post by hyperpape »

copsarebastards wrote: post #11

Philosophy has become disconnected with real-life concerns. Philosophers operate in a void, working on problems without context. Attempts to connect this work with real-life concerns usually involve taking an idea developed without context and trying to apply it to a field (computer ethics, philosophy of scientific methods, etc.). This works poorly because the philosopher doesn't understand the field. A computer scie…

How much actual philosophy of science written since 1970 have you read? Right now, a constant conflict is that (many) non-philosophers of science think philosophy of science has gotten too empirical and too focused on particular scientific issues, to the detriment of philosophy (I don't believe this, but it shows how out of touch you are). Grad students in Phil Sci are expected to do graduate coursework in the scientific fields they study, and completing a masters is quite common.

As for working scientists, many have brilliant insights into the practice of science and its epistemology, but very many working scientists will offer you a warmed over version of Karl Popper as their philosophy of science.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#18

Post by gaius »

taylorscollon wrote: post #9
ahallock wrote: post #8

I would love to force people to pay for things I love to do. There's nothing wrong with teaching philosophy, but stealing money to do so is wrong and lazy. What if I'd rather my money go toward cancer research? This guy would deny me that opportunity. He's saying his preferences are more important than mine. There are plenty of ways to make money teaching philosophy: donations (see FDR on Youtube as an example), book…

You're arguing against taxes, not philosophy.

FTA

    I am a professor of philosophy at a public university. What is the value of 
    philosophy to the taxpayers who subsidize my teaching
Taxpayers funding STEM subjects is very clearly an investment. But we fund philosophers only because have convinced us we ought to. But as Nietzsche said, that which convinces is not true, it is merely convincing.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#19

Post by javert »

Symmetry wrote: post #10
barrkel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't underestimate philosophy's power to change the world. Marx's critique of capitalism had a dramatic effect, for example.

I suppose Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be more useful than it looks. Much as in AI, whenever a philosopher ends up making an important contribution it starts a new type of academic research (political economy in Marx's case) and is no longer considered to be philosophy.

Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be very dangerous. Marx's ideas have literally caused the deaths of millions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, and probably others. Besides keeping people desperately impoverished in places like Venezuela.

I'm not saying we sholdn't do philosophy because it can be dangerous. Philosophy can also be very good. In fact, we need the good ideas to prove the bad ideas wrong. I am a big fan of philosophy.

But not at the point of a gun (i.e., not on the taxpayer's dime). Philosophers used to be self-funded or funded by patrons. As an aside, since philosophers have become primarily funded by governments and guns, we have a 10,000 fold increase in the number of philosophers, and no increase in the quality of output.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#20

Post by hyperpape »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #12
orthoganol wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like a lot of outsiders see people like Zizek, and get the impression that philosophy today has a lot do with language and psychoanalysis. I'm not exactly sure what the insights are, but it at least feels like a very different brand than Socrates badgering people about what is justice.

Socrates is analytic -- well, proto-analytic. Zizek is Continental.

I get what you're trying to say but "analytic philosophy" was a pretty specific movement, and calling Socrates pronto-analytic is just confusing.
Post reply on HN